I'm new here...I was a huge fan of the MT era, so very disappointed when Mick T. quit. I always thought there was more to the story than was made public at the time, which turned out to be true. I loved Ronnie with Faces, but his creative contribution to the Stones peaked at Some Girls and it's been down hill ever since. I have always felt that Keith was more comfortable having a sidekick he could dominate rather than a true musical partner on the "other" guitar. With all Keith's talk about "the ancient art of weaving" with Ronnie, one only has to listen to the Gimme Shelter version of Satisfaction or to Ya-Ya's to hear real weaving. I think the lack of real interplay and musicianship on the guitar parts (especially live) has been a big factor in the Stones' long musical decline. I wish it weren't true.

I agree with you completely, although the creative decline was already evident on the studio albums leading up to Mick Taylor's departure. I think the Stones took the easy option in having Ronnie in the group - someone who would primarily fit in socially, but not perhaps outstandingly musically. Ronnie was great in the Faces i'd agree but in that group he was pretty much playing Keith's role. In the Stones Keith is already secure within his role obviously, and trying to take over from Taylor was never going to be easy as they are very different guitar players. It's fair to say the Stones style did change shortly after his arrival, which perhaps suited him better, but i'd agree when i think of Ronnie joining the group i think of wasted opportunities.

Ronnie plays well enough and looks good with Mick and Keith. Any decline in recording quality must be greatly attributed to the song writers who dominate the band. Black & Blue was not just Ronnie as second guitarist. Having someone join a band who are already under stress can cause internal conflict so I think Mick wisely went along with Keith having a 'mate' join rather than another ego like Clapton or a talented newby like Taylor. If Mick was fully aware of Ronnie drink / drugs problems he may have had second thoughts.

If the Stones would make an album today similar to Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers not even critics would take them for serious nor any radiostation would give them a chance.
Each decade or even year in music has led to different vibes which includes clothing behaviour politics literature and more.
It might be true that such early 70ies have been the highlight the creativity during the Stones era.
Still tell me: which band is here today to cover such a rock and roll history and at least 2 generations of people?
There is the sun the moon and if we're lucky still the Rolling Stones.

Mum says we all decline that's why they invented Walking-Frames..Botox..Viagra & KY Jell....



ROCKMAN

Ronnie Wood's playing was good on his first three soloalbums and it was good with the Stones, with the Faces it might have been well, but as Ronnie said the Faces were not very professional, most of theeir recordings sound amateurish. In 81/82 Wood had some great nights, but during some shows his playing was horrible because he was so drunk and drugged that he could hardly stand. I remember a clip that was posted here when Bill Wyman rolled his eyes and laughed after an idiotic solo from his colleague. On Undercover, Dirty work, Steel Wheels Ronnie played very good, and during the 89/90 tour Ronnie was in very good shape, one can here that on Tokyo 90 and Atlantic City. On Voodoo Lounge Ronnie Wood has highlights (Out of tears),but due to his drinking problems he does not play on four songs.On the VL tour he often was very good, one can hear it on Stripped and Stripped Companion. On Bridges to Babylon he does not play much, his solo on Gunface is ridiculous. His decline became audible during the 97-99 tour. He never reached his old level afterwards, yet he had some decent nights since then. Until 1999 Keith Richards was extremely good, but when his playing got worse because of his arthritis the guitars became a problem for the Stones.

<most of theeir recordings sound amateurish.>

??? "Nod" and "Ooh La La" sound amateurish... ?

Ron Wood has been one of my favourite guitarist/bassists for about as long as I can remember. Of course, I first heard him via the Stones...when I doubled back and got into his solo albums and the Faces I couldn't believe it was the same guy! IMO -and undoubtedly others- Woody's talents have been completely WASTED as a Stone. I agree he was the safe, easy choice as Taylor's replacement, but Ronnie is so ill-used in the Stones it's not even funny. In the studio he's pretty much their go-to guy for slide guitar; that's about it. I bet, with only a few exceptions, that "Steel Wheels" was probably the last time he participated in the basic tracks. Pretty much all his parts have been overdubbed since then. That's sad. Funny how ever since he gained 'full membership' in '93 he's been treated like another bleedin' session musician, no different from Chuck Leavell or Bobby Keys. In fact, Leavell has even more influence than Ronnie! How the hell did they let that happen?! Nice repayment for mediating between Jagger and Richards during the "Dirty Work" days, eh? (Of course, Mick and Keith have never really been known for their, ahem, gratitude.)

Sure, Woody is his own worst enemy, as far as his drinking and drugging goes, but I find it amazing that Keith, after all these years, manages to get a free pass for doing the same sort of things (except for shtupping a nineteen year old Russian broad, of course- WTF was Woody thinking, anyway?!). I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Ron's ongoing habits have to do with how under-utilized he is in the Stones; ironically, that's a bit of a Catch 22, innit?

Even Woody's detractors will miss him when he's gone.

I have said a million times here - I will not accept any I hate Ronnie or Mick T is better or any kind of such campaigns ranking any of the Stones as bad vs others.

Bjornulf