Of course, speaking of his whole contribution, not only the ultimate years

Nothing new: the question is just means to put plain and simple what other threads have taunted before: that Ron Wood is a musician of which skills within the Stones are very monitered, and focused only to serve the Stones needs - these needs being only defined ultimately by the two Stones leaders, and only them.

From that perspective, put it in a another words : Ron Wood would be a session man

This doen't interfere with his other contrbutions to the Stones, notably his fan base, which helps for the global successs of the band.

wouldn't that be true with every other stone except for Mick and Keith?

Hey, leave Charlie out of this one!

No way you do without Charlie, or even half of it.

Quote
Ket
wouldn't that be true with every other stone except for Mick and Keith?

Nope, too much of the rhythm centers on Charlie's drumming style. Always has.

I would not consider either Mick Taylor as a session man because of his unique style, and also because his stong - sometimes allegedly unwelcomed - contribution to the Stones live sound, especially in 1973 -

It seems there was no way at that time the Stones leaders could have a tame Mick Taylor on stage - even they didn't like it

Quote
The Joker
I would not consider either Mick Taylor as a session man because of his unique style, and also because his stong - sometimes allegedly unwelcomed - contribution to the Stones live sound, especially in 1973 -

It seems there was no way at that time the Stones leaders could have a tame Mick Taylor on stage - even they didn't like it

Rubbish!, all it would have have taken would be for them to say they wanted him out and it would happen instantly, that is my whole point arguing from your orginal post. If Mick and Keith agree on something it is going to happen even if it meant firing any of the other stones not they would have ever have fired Charlie they love him and his playing but theoreticly they could.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-01 16:08 by Ket.

Quote
Ket

Quote
The Joker
I would not consider either Mick Taylor as a session man because of his unique style, and also because his stong - sometimes allegedly unwelcomed - contribution to the Stones live sound, especially in 1973 -

It seems there was no way at that time the Stones leaders could have a tame Mick Taylor on stage - even they didn't like it

Rubbish!, all it would have have taken would be for them to say they wanted him out and it would happen instantly, that is my whole point arguing from your orginal post. If Mick and Keith agree on something it is going to happen even if it meant firing any of the other stones not they would have ever have fired Charlie they love him and his playing but theoreticly they could.

I disagree: being leaders means also to compose with the era, the public image of the band, and most of all the logistics of a tour - I don't believe it is easy to fire a musician who is praised by the public, and who provides a steady and great contribution that is part of the success of the band

This said, it is known Jagger and Richards were sometimes upset by Taylor playing, either seen as too loud, or with too long solos and lack of interaction with the other guitarist - Richards said it clearly in many interviews after 1974 - so, no, they did not have motive to fire Taylor - it would have alienated the fan base, , and, yes, they were sometimes annoyed by his style

Even if Ronnie's musical suggestions don't carry the same weight as Mick and Keith, his voice, when he has an inspiration or idea, must be condidered by the others. A sessionman on the otherhand is simply "handed" a music sheet and asked to do excactly what the producer wants him to play; I don't think Ron is treated like that inside The Stones.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Ron Wood was a friend of the band, who´s dream to play with Keith and Mick onstage came true.... he is actually living every boys dream since 75´. His contribution? To be a bridge between Mick and Keith´s continous drift in life and creativity. In my honest and humble opinion Wood may have saved the band from becoming a Mick Jagger dictatorship or an eternal rumble between the two leaders for that matter.

Yes Ronnie is a bridge between Mick and Keith and he is also a foil to Mick on stage. I also think that Ronnie's happy personality keeps the band harmonious he is NOT a session man. Plus he also looks the part of a Rolling Stone. The poor guy gets picked on on this board all the time. I think a lot is un-warranted.

I think it varies from song to song; from situation to situation. Granted: Mick or Keith have a lot to do with what determines the song or situation, but I'm sure there are songs when Mick will have a specific part for Ronnie in mind. That can be a good thing, a compliment of sorts. "I hear this great pedal steel part, that only you can do Ronnie".
Or Keith dictates something note for note, that the only reason he needs Ronnie is because he himself doesn't have 4 hands.
Or Ron himself jumpstarts a song with a riff. Or it is wide open and everyone thinks of their own parts, and the song was never clear until then.
But I do see what the Joker is saying; that more and more it is probably the case where it is just "Leave a message at the beep: We left 8 bars here for you to put something; but keep it on the low. Later"

it was Hey Negrita that he walked into those Munich "audition" sessions with, right?
that is not what a session musician does.

I agree with The Joker that Ron is in the band just to fulfill the job as guitar player that fits exactly in the band and nothing less or more (more as our great Mick Taylor did which was not always appreciated by the the twins) so yes you could consider him as a Rolling Stones session man.

__________________________

So is Charlie a session man too?

No for both Charlie and Bill they payed as they played and developed there own sound, if Charlie will be replaced then the new drummer have to sound like Charlie.

But maybe the word session man isn't quite right

__________________________

What about Brian Jones? I mean, you can clearly hear his influence in the music from the start until he left. I cannot recall any songwriting credits listing Brian Jones. Satantic Maj. Req. seems to have alot of Brian in it. I may be wrong. Any ideas?

Quote
DeliveranceStraightwayHoliness
that more and more it is probably the case where it is just "Leave a message at the beep: We left 8 bars here for you to put something; but keep it on the low. Later"

It is very well put: exactly it!

>> I cannot recall any songwriting credits listing Brian Jones. <<

The Rice Krispies jingle is credited to Brian and the advertising agency.

>> Satantic Maj. Req. seems to have alot of Brian in it. I may be wrong. Any ideas? <<

see His Majesty's excellent thread at [www.iorr.org] ... have fun!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-01-02 12:12 by with sssoul.