Tell Me :
Talk
By that logic it's equally pointless to argue with you. And why should we "accept" an argument that we plainly believe is wrong?...and it seems to me that a "conservative" is someone who supports the status quo, which is Ronnie, so not as nearly as good a description for us as you think. Go ahead and enjoy your 1976 version of Tumbling Dice, I couldn't care less, but stop trying to convince me it's better, because I have ears, and I don't think it is.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 02:45 by 71Tele.
Yes! I'd love to hear A LOT of Ronnie's slide playing on the next Stones album - and lap steel, too. Thanks for considering.
It's fine. But give me '73 with Taylor, Bill and a more solid Keith any day.
Yes, I prefer Taylor solos played by Taylor to Taylor solos played in mediocre fashion by Ronnie. I also prefer the guitar interplay between MT and Keith to the chaotic, random mess that has gone under the general name of "weaving" for most (not all) of the last 36 years. I think the true purposeful weaving can be heard on Ya-Yas. Why can't you handle that a lot of people feel that way? I get that you don't agree. It doesn't mean we have written the band off. It means we think the musical bar was lowered with Ronnie. I don't think it's an outrageous argument, and it obviously by no means hampers your enjoyment of the many talents of Mr. Wood, so why the hostility and name calling?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 05:21 by 71Tele.
I think that's reasonable, Slew. I have often said that Some Girls was a breath of fresh air. I just happen to think that's where the Ronnie/Keith version of "weaving" peaked - on songs like Beast Of Burden. I don't think the guitar interplay has been as interesting or magical in the many years since. The promise was not realized. Not all Ronnie's fault, because there was a gradual decline in the quality of material after Some Girls.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 06:42 by 71Tele.
I pretty much agree with everything you say, Doxa, except i don't believe the ancient art of weaving was all it was cracked up to be. It's like repeating the same one liner over and over again, it just gets boring after a while. The Stones plunged into mediocrity with Ronnie in the group although i don't believe he was wholly responsible for the decline, just the fact that the Stones lost a dimension to their sound as a result of his arrival. The Stones generally were in pretty bad shape in 75-76, and very much became a parody of their former selves. In 78 they were probably at their musical peak with Ronnie in the band, but by 81-82 they had started to lose their focus to a degree. Ronnie has given the Stones very little in terms of new musical possibilities, but he give them perhaps a little more stability when perhaps Mick and Keith were not on the best of terms. The general decline was of course a result of the Stones generally, but musically, apart from a very brief spell, Ronnie has never really proved invigorating. He's certainly no Brian Jones or Mick Taylor, but maybe his biggest asset is, unlike them, he has managed to stay the course. Mediocrity isn't just exclusive to Ronnie, it's been the story of the whole band pretty much while he's been a member, and on those terms he has fitted in well. Brian Jones and Mick Taylor reflect the musical brilliance of the group in its prime, and maybe Ronnie's legacy is in reflecting the Stones longevity, and an ability to last the course.
Maybe. But when someone starts a thread about Ronnie's contribution, it invites the comparisons once again. Can't be helped. Maybe we should all agree to a trial 30-day moratorium of Ronnie vs. Taylor posts.
Well, not true. The only purpose of my thread was to discuss "Ron Wood impact on the Stones". That is, things that happened when MT was NOT in the band any more. You say you play the guitar. Why don't you say something like "I've played beast of burden as the stones did live in 81. Easy to do and boring experience. Much better having a solid rhythm laid down on which improvise a 10m solo". Probably you are not even iterested in playing that way, so you wouldn't even care to try. Understandable. But what I find objectively wrong is to say that the music the band played in studio and live between 77 and 82 was "easier" "less sophisticated" "worse" whatever, when compared to what was played during the MT years. That is 69-73 BAND vs. 77-82 BAND, NOT MT v. RW.
Easy.
C
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 18:50 by liddas.
Tele,obviously you recognize every thread dealing with Ronnie as a "vs. Taylor " one.
That´s your problem and that´s a pity.
So may I take your word you´ve banned yourself at least for the next 30 days ?
Deal !
That's exactly the very essence of the power of the music in those early RW years, because not only the guitar section could benefit of that "extra room" but it was the whole band to break free. Very very little space for pre-cooked arrangements and licks. You had to be smart and fast.
At the time those guyscould play a 10 minute long Miss You and keep it exciting from A to Z.
The down side of it was that being it all basically improvised the line between amazing and trainwreck could be very very thin ...
C
Superb point, liddas...though I must add...there may have been other bands 'organized' like the 1973 Rolling Stones, but none (that I ever saw or heard) flew as high and burned as brightly and intensely as those Stones...none...
Ha, well, that's for sure!
C
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 12, 2010 02:10
Quote
bassplayer617
I agree with Liddas completely, but of course, the conservatives CAN'T accept it. They are unwilling and unable to conceive the obvious, so it's pointless to argue with them.
And, inevitably, the old arguements will surface again.
Be forewarned, as the same old sh*t is prepeated ad nauseaum.
By that logic it's equally pointless to argue with you. And why should we "accept" an argument that we plainly believe is wrong?...and it seems to me that a "conservative" is someone who supports the status quo, which is Ronnie, so not as nearly as good a description for us as you think. Go ahead and enjoy your 1976 version of Tumbling Dice, I couldn't care less, but stop trying to convince me it's better, because I have ears, and I don't think it is.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 02:45 by 71Tele.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
billwebster
()
Date: February 12, 2010 02:35
Quote
T&A
ronnie's primary talents have always been as a slide player - he almost NEVER employed the slide with this band - so you can fully disagree or not, but the evidence speaks for itself...
Yes! I'd love to hear A LOT of Ronnie's slide playing on the next Stones album - and lap steel, too. Thanks for considering.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: February 12, 2010 02:55
....I think that sometimes people forget......the glimmers in the end had a choice.....probably millions of them...and in the end...they chose RW over all others ....I am glad they did...hope he stays sober..
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
bassplayer617
()
Date: February 12, 2010 04:01
LOL! Ok, here's a modernized version of "Tumbling Dice", with a nice bass guitar line by Darryl Jones and a decent lead by Ronnie. Oh, BTW, this sounds closer to the original version, WITH the Vegas-style background singers and the horns, than the MT-era version ever did. Of course, this is the conservative version. 
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 04:08 by bassplayer617.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 04:08 by bassplayer617.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 12, 2010 04:08
Quote
bassplayer617
LOL! Ok, here's a modernized version of "Tumbling Dice", with a nice bass guitar line by Darryl Jones and a decent lead by Ronnie. Oh, BTW, this sounds closer to the original version, WITH the Vegas-style background singers ad the horns, than the MT-era version ever did. Of course, this is the conservative version.
It's fine. But give me '73 with Taylor, Bill and a more solid Keith any day.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
bassplayer617
()
Date: February 12, 2010 04:19
That's fine with me, 71 Tele. At least you will readily admit that you're a confirmed Taylorite, and have basically written off the band for, uhh, the last 36 years or so. And that makes ME a conservative ? Okey dokey, then. We'll agree to disagree. C'est la vie, and vive la difference.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 04:23 by bassplayer617.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 04:23 by bassplayer617.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
melillo
()
Date: February 12, 2010 05:13
woody has impacted the band both with his playing style and his uncanny ability to keep mick n keith on a relative even keel during the dreaded mid 80s debacle
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 12, 2010 05:19
Quote
bassplayer617
That's fine with me, 71 Tele. At least you will readily admit that you're a confirmed Taylorite, and have basically written off the band for, uhh, the last 36 years or so. And that makes ME a conservative ? Okey dokey, then. We'll agree to disagree. C'est la vie, and vive la difference.
Yes, I prefer Taylor solos played by Taylor to Taylor solos played in mediocre fashion by Ronnie. I also prefer the guitar interplay between MT and Keith to the chaotic, random mess that has gone under the general name of "weaving" for most (not all) of the last 36 years. I think the true purposeful weaving can be heard on Ya-Yas. Why can't you handle that a lot of people feel that way? I get that you don't agree. It doesn't mean we have written the band off. It means we think the musical bar was lowered with Ronnie. I don't think it's an outrageous argument, and it obviously by no means hampers your enjoyment of the many talents of Mr. Wood, so why the hostility and name calling?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 05:21 by 71Tele.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: February 12, 2010 06:32
liddas - Thank you for a well written post. I agree and I've posted many time Woody pumped new life into the band. Some Gorls shows a band clearly re-vitalized and Ron is a HUGE part of that he was a shot in the arm. It did not last because of the friction with Mick and Keith after Undercover they have not really been a working band so to speak. I wish more fans would take Liddas's approach to this subject all three second guitarists era's were all great in their own and different ways.
As a live band Tele71 is correct they were most consistent and powerful with Taylor but I seen and heard many great live moments with Ronnie in the band. We all also need to remember by 1985 the Rolling Stones had seen and done it "all" there was really no going up the band has had years of substance abuse they had peaked its not 1972 or 1978 these guys will most likely never be like that again. They live separate lives and don't hang out and write together.
As a live band Tele71 is correct they were most consistent and powerful with Taylor but I seen and heard many great live moments with Ronnie in the band. We all also need to remember by 1985 the Rolling Stones had seen and done it "all" there was really no going up the band has had years of substance abuse they had peaked its not 1972 or 1978 these guys will most likely never be like that again. They live separate lives and don't hang out and write together.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 12, 2010 06:39
Quote
slew
liddas - Thank you for a well written post. I agree and I've posted many time Woody pumped new life into the band. Some Gorls shows a band clearly re-vitalized and Ron is a HUGE part of that he was a shot in the arm. It did not last because of the friction with Mick and Keith after Undercover they have not really been a working band so to speak. I wish more fans would take Liddas's approach to this subject all three second guitarists era's were all great in their own and different ways.
As a live band Tele71 is correct they were most consistent and powerful with Taylor but I seen and heard many great live moments with Ronnie in the band. We all also need to remember by 1985 the Rolling Stones had seen and done it "all" there was really no going up the band has had years of substance abuse they had peaked its not 1972 or 1978 these guys will most likely never be like that again. They live separate lives and don't hang out and write together.
I think that's reasonable, Slew. I have often said that Some Girls was a breath of fresh air. I just happen to think that's where the Ronnie/Keith version of "weaving" peaked - on songs like Beast Of Burden. I don't think the guitar interplay has been as interesting or magical in the many years since. The promise was not realized. Not all Ronnie's fault, because there was a gradual decline in the quality of material after Some Girls.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 06:42 by 71Tele.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
Turd On The Run
()
Date: February 12, 2010 06:40
Liddas, you posit a very interesting and somewhat counterintuitive theory here. I find it challenging and intriguing to re-think the dynamic that Woody brought to the Stones.
Seeing them in 1975/76...I was excited by Ronnie's addition in 1975 and I thought the band had 'funkified' and democratized their sound...he surely had a lot to do with that...they were no longer the brooding, malevolent Stones spitting out one dark masterpiece after another...these were fan-friendly, smiling, party-hearty Stones...still dangerous, but mostly dangerous to themselves(!)...Billy Preston dancing in the wings and Woody acting like Keef's little brother...Jagger bouncing around like a marionette...but the musical quality had taken a dip...especially in the 'lead' guitar playing...Woody was fun and funky but wasn't an especially inventive lead guitar player, and that was the role he was thrust into at the time...his brittle tone and lack of imagination really hurt the songs where a strong lead was necessary within the song's structure...
The 1976 shows weren't as much fun...the band had slowed down noticeably...the new B&B material was cool, though...the new Keef/Woody dynamic was still there...you can hear it on the El Mocambo side of LYL...
By the time the Miracle of '78 rolled around Woody was a real Stone the dynamic had changed, Keef had come charging back to life and the era of the 'Weave' was born. The new songs were fast and fresh and stripped down and they really fit the bands new lineup...I think Jagger's fear of becoming irrelevant, and Keef's awakening from a 9 year Horse Haze were the major factors...Woody's personality and guitar style too...maybe I underestimated his 'impact', but after reading your post I really have to reconsider and look at this with fresh eyes and listen with fresh ears...maybe Woody's influence at that time has been badly underestimated by many of us...
But as 71tele has written, the era was short...the last gasp was the 1981/82 Tours, and I remember thinking that Woody was not especially impactful on those tours...the 'weaving' was there, but Keef was far more prominent and Woody was taking a back seat more and more and at times seemed distracted...he was also fukced out of his mind free-basing blow...
Your theory about Woody's impact in his first decade is quite engaging and thought-provoking...
Ron Wood was at one time a nice fit inside the Stones sound. Taylor (and Brian in his later years) were more like entities unto themselves, whereas Wood was the consummate group ensemble member. But the bottom line is Brian Jones and Mick Taylor took the Stones sound to places where the band could never have traveled without them. Woody never had the talent or personality to do that...except perhaps for that one short (1978-1980) and golden era...
Seeing them in 1975/76...I was excited by Ronnie's addition in 1975 and I thought the band had 'funkified' and democratized their sound...he surely had a lot to do with that...they were no longer the brooding, malevolent Stones spitting out one dark masterpiece after another...these were fan-friendly, smiling, party-hearty Stones...still dangerous, but mostly dangerous to themselves(!)...Billy Preston dancing in the wings and Woody acting like Keef's little brother...Jagger bouncing around like a marionette...but the musical quality had taken a dip...especially in the 'lead' guitar playing...Woody was fun and funky but wasn't an especially inventive lead guitar player, and that was the role he was thrust into at the time...his brittle tone and lack of imagination really hurt the songs where a strong lead was necessary within the song's structure...
The 1976 shows weren't as much fun...the band had slowed down noticeably...the new B&B material was cool, though...the new Keef/Woody dynamic was still there...you can hear it on the El Mocambo side of LYL...
By the time the Miracle of '78 rolled around Woody was a real Stone the dynamic had changed, Keef had come charging back to life and the era of the 'Weave' was born. The new songs were fast and fresh and stripped down and they really fit the bands new lineup...I think Jagger's fear of becoming irrelevant, and Keef's awakening from a 9 year Horse Haze were the major factors...Woody's personality and guitar style too...maybe I underestimated his 'impact', but after reading your post I really have to reconsider and look at this with fresh eyes and listen with fresh ears...maybe Woody's influence at that time has been badly underestimated by many of us...
But as 71tele has written, the era was short...the last gasp was the 1981/82 Tours, and I remember thinking that Woody was not especially impactful on those tours...the 'weaving' was there, but Keef was far more prominent and Woody was taking a back seat more and more and at times seemed distracted...he was also fukced out of his mind free-basing blow...
Your theory about Woody's impact in his first decade is quite engaging and thought-provoking...
Ron Wood was at one time a nice fit inside the Stones sound. Taylor (and Brian in his later years) were more like entities unto themselves, whereas Wood was the consummate group ensemble member. But the bottom line is Brian Jones and Mick Taylor took the Stones sound to places where the band could never have traveled without them. Woody never had the talent or personality to do that...except perhaps for that one short (1978-1980) and golden era...
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 12, 2010 06:45
<< Woody was not especially impactful on those tours...the 'weaving' was there, but Keef was far more prominent and Woody was taking a back seat more and more and at times seemed distracted...he was also fukced out of his mind free-basing blow...>>
This is the problem I have with some of the Ronnie apologists. The Taylorites are accused of living in the past and not accepting reality. But Ronnie's peak was 78-81 at best - quite a long time ago. He has spent a lot of the last quarter century treading water...By the way, Turd, I think your post was probably the best-argued one I have seen on this subject. '75 was my first Stones show too, and I was really excited that Ronnie had joined. That excitement gave way to disappointment when some of the songs just didn't sound that good. I agree that by El Mocambo Ronnie was really integrated, and those four songs on that record show it. After that something bad happened.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 06:53 by 71Tele.
This is the problem I have with some of the Ronnie apologists. The Taylorites are accused of living in the past and not accepting reality. But Ronnie's peak was 78-81 at best - quite a long time ago. He has spent a lot of the last quarter century treading water...By the way, Turd, I think your post was probably the best-argued one I have seen on this subject. '75 was my first Stones show too, and I was really excited that Ronnie had joined. That excitement gave way to disappointment when some of the songs just didn't sound that good. I agree that by El Mocambo Ronnie was really integrated, and those four songs on that record show it. After that something bad happened.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 06:53 by 71Tele.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: February 12, 2010 06:49
I think Ronnie was actually pretty much out of it on the 81 tour with the drugs. Keith was carrying things at that point. I think Ronnie was very good on the Licks tour especially early on and he was okay on the last leg of the Bang tour when Keith was recovering and not playing well and perhaps drinking too much. They have had moments of brilliance live with Ronnie but far more consistent with Taylor.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: February 12, 2010 08:52
Quote
Doxa
A great, well-argued post by liddas!
It never occurred to me that Ronnie could have affected to Keith's playing but that might be true. But as far as SOME GIRLS go I would give the actual credits for Mick Jagger for the new sound examplified there. It is him following the trends pushing the band with his new fast songs and raw rhythm guitar to the new era.
Anyway, I would not quite say that Ronnie was "in the center", but he was still an important contributor to their sound in the last profilic, great era of the band had (1978-1982). But I still would claim that Ronnie's achievemnent was to strengthen the features the band already have, and not really giving new ones or leading them to a new terratory. Those 'funky' riffs he would offer to band were nice - a'la "Hey Negrita" - were great but the world greatest rhythmn guitarist who have the potentia of coming up with the best riffs ever made, was already in the band. But taking some of Keith's duties into his shoulders gave to real Keith more room to move and 'relax'. Perhaps that we the birth of "ancient art of weaving", examplified so goddamn well in 1978 and 1981/82 tours.
Would a term "Ronettes" to be equal to "Taylorites"?><
- Doxa
I pretty much agree with everything you say, Doxa, except i don't believe the ancient art of weaving was all it was cracked up to be. It's like repeating the same one liner over and over again, it just gets boring after a while. The Stones plunged into mediocrity with Ronnie in the group although i don't believe he was wholly responsible for the decline, just the fact that the Stones lost a dimension to their sound as a result of his arrival. The Stones generally were in pretty bad shape in 75-76, and very much became a parody of their former selves. In 78 they were probably at their musical peak with Ronnie in the band, but by 81-82 they had started to lose their focus to a degree. Ronnie has given the Stones very little in terms of new musical possibilities, but he give them perhaps a little more stability when perhaps Mick and Keith were not on the best of terms. The general decline was of course a result of the Stones generally, but musically, apart from a very brief spell, Ronnie has never really proved invigorating. He's certainly no Brian Jones or Mick Taylor, but maybe his biggest asset is, unlike them, he has managed to stay the course. Mediocrity isn't just exclusive to Ronnie, it's been the story of the whole band pretty much while he's been a member, and on those terms he has fitted in well. Brian Jones and Mick Taylor reflect the musical brilliance of the group in its prime, and maybe Ronnie's legacy is in reflecting the Stones longevity, and an ability to last the course.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
KeithNacho
()
Date: February 12, 2010 10:00
Ron Wood is cojonudo. He has been in two of the most important rock bands in the world leading guitar playing (Faces + Stones). He is not a tcehnique player, KR and Townsend aren't too, but i like him a lot. Taylor is a very great lead guitarist., much better than RW, but they are great botn.
A sugest a new thread for the Taylorists:
John Mayall & the heart breakers: Clapton vs Green vs Taylor....vs Montoya....
A sugest a new thread for the Taylorists:
John Mayall & the heart breakers: Clapton vs Green vs Taylor....vs Montoya....
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 12, 2010 12:06
Quote
71TeleQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
<His interpretations of Taylor-era songs are always below the standard Taylor set.>
YCAGWYW. Happy and Tumbling Dice were just as good with Ronnie in 75/76, imo. To this day, Happy And TD are better than they were with Taylor, imo. The rest was way better with Taylor.
Someone said Wood´s talent was mainly playing slide. Just listen to Hot Stuff on LYL and say that again. That is fantastic playing, imo.
I don't like the 76 TD version, either. Too similar to the slow and dragging 72/73 versions. TD in 89/90 was perfect, imo. What's wrong with Happy on LYL?? I happen to like Woody's slide playing on that track in particular better than Taylor's "country scale approach". Let's agree to disagree
I named Hot Stuff as an example of Woody's ability to play great solos without slide, as one on this board stated that slide playing was where he had his talent only. Taylor era song or not, as a guitar player I can say that Woody's solo on Hot Stuff is brilliant, whether you like LYL or not.
yes, in your opinion. I respectfully disagree. I think TD in '76 is awful compared to '73. So are the other two you mentioned. Hot Stuff is not a Taylor-era song. I think three of the four sides of LYL are utterly disposable. Far superior versions of the classics are available on Ya-Yas and on boots like Brussels.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: February 12, 2010 12:25
Seems as if we have concerning the Rolling Stones too many "part-time-lovers" here.
What´s the use in creating constantly a debate how good Taylor was and how bad
Ronnie compared ?
Why is it impossible to accept and love each era with all their more or less tops and flops ?
Without Ronnie´s impact ,and that´s what this thread is all about,this site
probably never happened or could´ve been closed for a long time,to remind to a
remark Bjornulf recently made in another thread but with similar context.
And by the way,all this Taylorites and Ronettes whatever is kids stuff...
What´s the use in creating constantly a debate how good Taylor was and how bad
Ronnie compared ?
Why is it impossible to accept and love each era with all their more or less tops and flops ?
Without Ronnie´s impact ,and that´s what this thread is all about,this site
probably never happened or could´ve been closed for a long time,to remind to a
remark Bjornulf recently made in another thread but with similar context.
And by the way,all this Taylorites and Ronettes whatever is kids stuff...
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
klrkcr
()
Date: February 12, 2010 15:22
Two different players, two different styles.I dont think anyone could hold Mick T back in the day- especially in 73, so fluid and brilliant.Whether Mick and Keith wanted someone to replicate that role once Mick left,I dont know, but Ron did seem to bring about a change in musical style.I was never fortunate to see the stones with Taylor, but saw Licks and thought Ron played very good.Maybe they(Mick and Keith) did not want to "stay" in that 69-73 hard rock theme, Im sure they could have found a "replica"or Taylor clone had they wanted to- but chose Ron for the job.Either way, I will always be grateful for Rons role in bringing Mick and Keith together in the late 80s.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 12, 2010 17:53
Whether they should have replaced Taylor with someone like Wayne Perkins is an interesting potential discussion. I'm not sure that would have been a good idea. They picked whom they picked, and we all have the records and live shows now to debate about, contrast and compare. Isn't it wonderful?
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: February 12, 2010 18:03
"Isn't it wonderful?"
NO. Bloody boring!
Why do these threads have to be overtaken by and handful of MT obsessives? It always turns into an MT devotion thats both tedious and been done to death.
NO. Bloody boring!
Why do these threads have to be overtaken by and handful of MT obsessives? It always turns into an MT devotion thats both tedious and been done to death.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 12, 2010 18:16
Quote
ablett
"Isn't it wonderful?"
NO. Bloody boring!
Why do these threads have to be overtaken by and handful of MT obsessives? It always turns into an MT devotion thats both tedious and been done to death.
Maybe. But when someone starts a thread about Ronnie's contribution, it invites the comparisons once again. Can't be helped. Maybe we should all agree to a trial 30-day moratorium of Ronnie vs. Taylor posts.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 12, 2010 18:50
Quote
71TeleQuote
ablett
"Isn't it wonderful?"
NO. Bloody boring!
Why do these threads have to be overtaken by and handful of MT obsessives? It always turns into an MT devotion thats both tedious and been done to death.
Maybe. But when someone starts a thread about Ronnie's contribution, it invites the comparisons once again. Can't be helped. Maybe we should all agree to a trial 30-day moratorium of Ronnie vs. Taylor posts.
Well, not true. The only purpose of my thread was to discuss "Ron Wood impact on the Stones". That is, things that happened when MT was NOT in the band any more. You say you play the guitar. Why don't you say something like "I've played beast of burden as the stones did live in 81. Easy to do and boring experience. Much better having a solid rhythm laid down on which improvise a 10m solo". Probably you are not even iterested in playing that way, so you wouldn't even care to try. Understandable. But what I find objectively wrong is to say that the music the band played in studio and live between 77 and 82 was "easier" "less sophisticated" "worse" whatever, when compared to what was played during the MT years. That is 69-73 BAND vs. 77-82 BAND, NOT MT v. RW.
Easy.
C
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 18:50 by liddas.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 12, 2010 18:59
To add something to my earlier post, I have seen many great bands organized as the 73 stones. I have NEVER heard any band play as the Stones did in the 77 - 82 run. Never.
C
C
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
shortfatfanny
()
Date: February 12, 2010 19:10
Quote
71TeleQuote
ablett
"Isn't it wonderful?"
NO. Bloody boring!
Why do these threads have to be overtaken by and handful of MT obsessives? It always turns into an MT devotion thats both tedious and been done to death.
Maybe. But when someone starts a thread about Ronnie's contribution, it invites the comparisons once again. Can't be helped. Maybe we should all agree to a trial 30-day moratorium of Ronnie vs. Taylor posts.
Tele,obviously you recognize every thread dealing with Ronnie as a "vs. Taylor " one.
That´s your problem and that´s a pity.
So may I take your word you´ve banned yourself at least for the next 30 days ?
Deal !
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 12, 2010 19:13
Since you asked - I actually used to play a lot of Some Girls material in my band at the time: BOB, Imagination, Miss You, When The Whip Comes Down. The thrashy style of that record was loads of fun for us guitarists. There is a lot more room in those songs than in the more "classically" arranged Taylor-period songs. So that's a little different perspective from me as a guitarist a well as Stones fan. I also liked the 81 arrangements of Under My Thumb and Time Is On My Side. I thought the Wood/Richards guitar lineup worked very well on those.
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 12, 2010 19:53
Quote
71Tele
Since you asked - I actually used to play a lot of Some Girls material in my band at the time: BOB, Imagination, Miss You, When The Whip Comes Down. The thrashy style of that record was loads of fun for us guitarists. There is a lot more room in those songs than in the more "classically" arranged Taylor-period songs.
That's exactly the very essence of the power of the music in those early RW years, because not only the guitar section could benefit of that "extra room" but it was the whole band to break free. Very very little space for pre-cooked arrangements and licks. You had to be smart and fast.
At the time those guyscould play a 10 minute long Miss You and keep it exciting from A to Z.
The down side of it was that being it all basically improvised the line between amazing and trainwreck could be very very thin ...
C
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
Turd On The Run
()
Date: February 12, 2010 20:03
Quote
liddas
To add something to my earlier post, I have seen many great bands organized as the 73 stones. I have NEVER heard any band play as the Stones did in the 77 - 82 run. Never.
C
Superb point, liddas...though I must add...there may have been other bands 'organized' like the 1973 Rolling Stones, but none (that I ever saw or heard) flew as high and burned as brightly and intensely as those Stones...none...
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 12, 2010 20:12
Quote
Turd On The RunQuote
liddas
To add something to my earlier post, I have seen many great bands organized as the 73 stones. I have NEVER heard any band play as the Stones did in the 77 - 82 run. Never.
C
Superb point, liddas...though I must add...there may have been other bands 'organized' like the 1973 Rolling Stones, but none (that I ever saw or heard) flew as high and burned as brightly and intensely as those Stones...none...
Ha, well, that's for sure!
C
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: February 12, 2010 20:17
Tele71, why not post some of your playing?
Re: Ron Wood impact on the Stones
Posted by:
wee bobby lennox
()
Date: February 12, 2010 20:33
cant understand why people make comparisens between jones, taylor and wood.
all were an important part of the stones destiny but just had a different role to play.
i know there are many wood bashers out there but wood had a different job than taylor in that he had to learn songs from the mid 60,s era which was severely overlooked during the taylor era in concert.
the setlists during the taylor era were frankly extremely lazy and unimaginative, as if they had never existed in the mid 60,s at all.
all were an important part of the stones destiny but just had a different role to play.
i know there are many wood bashers out there but wood had a different job than taylor in that he had to learn songs from the mid 60,s era which was severely overlooked during the taylor era in concert.
the setlists during the taylor era were frankly extremely lazy and unimaginative, as if they had never existed in the mid 60,s at all.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
alexander paul , Big Al , NeddieFlanders , Nobbi82 , perkmo , phd27 , rastakeith , Redstone5 , skorpio65 , sonnystitt , spunky , TransmaniaconMC , Wuudy
Guests:
1786
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10