I have read so many times in the past RW/MT debates that Ron Wood's impact on the band was minimal, that he was relegated to the role of a yes man, and so on.

What a load of BS!!!

Sometime in 67 Keith started interpreting differently the drums bass section and developed a immediately recognisable guitar playing that became the trademark of the so called "golden era". I am no seession expert, but I would say that Connection is the very first evidence of what was coocking.

Of course the guitar sound changed with open tunings and fat chord progressions. But other groups were already developing a similar sound. What made the stones so unique was putting Keith's guitar and his grooving "playing with the tempo" set by Charlie and Bill under the spot light.

By Let it Bleed the new formula was well oiled and ready to take off. That's what happened once MT joined the band. By the time the last Street fighting Man of the 73 tour was done, it couldn't get any better.

In the time being Soup and the following IORR showed that the band was trying new directions. Probably during the Soup sessions they were forced to do so because of Keith's conditions, but who knows.

In any case, whenever Keith was in the room, and had control of the session, the let it bleed formula was back in place.

This continued well after MT left the band. The guitars during 75 tour were essentially organized as they were in the last Taylor years: me rhythm you solo.
Same can be said of the B&B sessions with Mandel and Perkins.

I can't define the exact moment, but slowly the band started to take a new direction and Wood was the key element.

Sure Ronnie could solo over Keith's rhythm, as he did with the Faces. But he had the force to change that formula.

More than solos he started pouring in the Stones music a huge variety of funky riffs. Take Negrita, for example. I can imagine the band saying great, what do we do with this! They started adapting. More than all, Keith was pushed to go back and study some new standard tuning positions.

The result was that incredible consecutive sessions that that cut and pasted with maestry gave birth to Some Girls.

Some Girls shows a completely different style of music, with Run being the only link with the past. And, above all, a completely new timbre. Higher registers and strong harsh electric sound (very few acoustics or keyboards to sweeten the music). Don't understimate the importance of timbre in music in general, but in modern rock music above all!

No more fixed roles or parts. Everybody was turned on. The bass / drums had no longer in Keith's guitar the main point of reference, and, in particular live, this allowed Charlie and Bill to reach unbelievable hights.

Keith reinvented completely himself as a guitarist. The complexity of his work shows a huge improvement if compared to the super macho - yet basic open g riffing of the 73 tour.

In all this, Ronnie was in the center. Yes, the weaving, but it was keith who adapted to his style more than the opposite, and the whole band took great benefit from this new formula.

Just not the easiest thing to acheive, if you consider that it all came from the new kid in the band.

Of course everything comes to an end.

The 89/90 tours fundamentally brought back the old let it bleed formula. The magic of the 78 - 82 tours was automatically over. Something new started. But I don't want to start the Vegas Era thread once again.

All I want to say is that for for at least 10 years Ron Wood was king in the stones camp. God bless him!

C

I agree that Woody had an impact on the Stones but it didn't last. There are some shows on the 76 tour where I sense that Woody is leading the band as Keith was probably in a drug-induced daze and after June 6 was grieving for his lost son. The sound on Some Girls is unlike anything the Stones produced before and Wood was clearly a part of that. By 1982 though I feel Wood was "disappearing into a haze of substance abuse" (to quote the standard Bob Dylan Introduction). From Some Girls to Dirty Work, Wood's influence in the studio is evident but he hasn't had a songwriting credit since. His contributions since have been less than they were. In 1997 I saw a show in Buffalo where Woody strummed along aimlessly and both Mick and Keith looked noticeably annoyed with him. The sober 2002-3 shows however were a vast improvement.

The good thing about this group is that they have been great (very great) since 1963 to 2005. I like Jones, Taylor and Wood. I have enjoyed their music and all they made me feel very happy, the most happy man in the world. Th best RS are from the 63-05 era. Cojonudos

Quote
stewedandkeefed
His contributions since have been less than they were. In 1997 I saw a show in Buffalo where Woody strummed along aimlessly and both Mick and Keith looked noticeably annoyed with him. The sober 2002-3 shows however were a vast improvement.

I think that Undercover and Dirty Work show a Wood still in good shape. On SW he plays some great stuff, but the best of it, and most of the killer interplay with Keith was left on the tapes and did not end up un the released album.

Obvious production decision: the band was changing skin once again.

On VL and B2B his role was closer to the one that the late Brian Jones had in the band: add the icing on the cake (in a positive way!). So you have fine touches of Wood here and there, but he is no more in the control room. Yet he managed to leave his sign and never to be repetitive.

C

It was probably easier for Ron Wood to have an "impact" on the Stones in the 70's because the Rolling Stones didn't function as a coorporation with lawyers regulating their creative moves yet. In the 70's Ron was able to have Mick at his house and they both wrote songs together(IORR) and he got somewhat a credit for it.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

well well, a very counterintuitive interpretation here...

Mick Taylor was there at the right time to start a new era and Woody was there at the right time to start another fresh era. Don`t wana hear Taylor on SG and other ones. ( yes I love Taylor and I love Ronnie`s work too. My god: is this possibel??)

well written liddas!

nice thread guys...thanks liddas

ronnie's role in the band took a dramatic down-tick starting with the '81 tour, when suddenly keith was competing in earnest for the "solo" space with his partner...that is VERY evident, when you compare how much of that space ronnie occupied on the prior two tours. by the time the '89 tour rolled around, he was relegated to a the role of an "accompianist"....

the prob i have with ronnie, as others here do, is that his talents that were on full display with the Faces were NEVER fully utilized and realized with the stones, which was especially disappointing in his first decade with the band when his chops were all still intact....

Well-written, yes. But I still disagree with the premise. Wood's artistic lift lasted all of one or two albums. It is his poor interpretation of Stones song from before his era in live shows that demonstrates his biggest weakness. Since I have made these points on other threads, I will leave it at that.

Quote
71Tele
Well-written, yes. But I still disagree with the premise. Wood's artistic lift lasted all of one or two albums. It is his poor interpretation of Stones song from before his era in live shows that demonstrates his biggest weakness. Since I have made these points on other threads, I will leave it at that.

The point here is not what Wood did NOT or could not do, but what he DID.

That said, if I remember stunning versions of Wild Horses, All Down The Line, HTW, JJD, Devil (the best of all), Silver, Cracking Up, Rooster, Around and Around .... all of them with Ron Wood on board.

C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-11 18:14 by liddas.

Quote
T&A
ronnie's role in the band took a dramatic down-tick starting with the '81 tour, when suddenly keith was competing in earnest for the "solo" space with his partner...that is VERY evident, when you compare how much of that space ronnie occupied on the prior two tours. by the time the '89 tour rolled around, he was relegated to a the role of an "accompianist"....

the prob i have with ronnie, as others here do, is that his talents that were on full display with the Faces were NEVER fully utilized and realized with the stones, which was especially disappointing in his first decade with the band when his chops were all still intact....

Keith and Ron during the 81/82 tour were perfectly balanced. I just don't hear no dramatic down-tick. True post 89, I think for the reasons i pointed out in my first post.

I fully disagree on your second point. As much as I love what Ron did with the Faces, and the faces themselves, those early Stones years (at least until undercover) were truly something else.

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
T&A
ronnie's role in the band took a dramatic down-tick starting with the '81 tour, when suddenly keith was competing in earnest for the "solo" space with his partner...that is VERY evident, when you compare how much of that space ronnie occupied on the prior two tours. by the time the '89 tour rolled around, he was relegated to a the role of an "accompianist"....

the prob i have with ronnie, as others here do, is that his talents that were on full display with the Faces were NEVER fully utilized and realized with the stones, which was especially disappointing in his first decade with the band when his chops were all still intact....

Keith and Ron during the 81/82 tour were perfectly balanced. I just don't hear no dramatic down-tick. True post 89, I think for the reasons i pointed out in my first post.

I fully disagree on your second point. As much as I love what Ron did with the Faces, and the faces themselves, those early Stones years (at least until undercover) were truly something else.

C

you think ronnie contributed as much to the 81/82 tour as he did on his prior two tours with the stones? whatever...but, he didn't.

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...

Tod, any theory as to why keith suddenly competed for solo space? Are you saying that without the change on keith's part, ron might have kept a more prominent role?

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele
Well-written, yes. But I still disagree with the premise. Wood's artistic lift lasted all of one or two albums. It is his poor interpretation of Stones song from before his era in live shows that demonstrates his biggest weakness. Since I have made these points on other threads, I will leave it at that.

The point here is not what Wood did NOT or could not do, but what he DID.

That said, if I remember stunning versions of Wild Horses, All Down The Line, HTW, JJD, Devil (the best of all), Silver, Cracking Up, Rooster, Around and Around .... all of them with Ron Wood on board.

C

I would disagree that any of those were stunning, except perhaps the El Mocambo live tracks you mentioned - which were all covers. His interpretations of Taylor-era songs are always below the standard Taylor set. It is only the degree to which that is true that has varied. I would also say per the original post's mention of '75 is that while the roles of the guitars did not change from the previous tour with Taylor, the quality of the playing certainly did. Wood never made songs like Tumbling Dice or All Down The Line his own (as Taylor had with Brian Jones-era material) but instead offered up watered-down versions of Taylor's parts. I will definitely agree that he made his mark on Some Girls, but it did not last.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-11 18:44 by 71Tele.

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...

This is a very limited perspective.

Ron Wood's greatness with the faces (a part for co-writing some of their best songs) was his incredible sense of rhythm (with or without a slide, guitar or bass) and his ability to give different colours to whatever he was playing (his choice of instruments was never banal, but also his fingerings, style, use of the amp's ditortion). All this he translted to the Stones.

For what matters, as a slide player, technically speaking, Taylor was way better than Wood.

C

C

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-11 19:04 by Doxa.

Quote
cc
Tod, any theory as to why keith suddenly competed for solo space? Are you saying that without the change on keith's part, ron might have kept a more prominent role?

well, i think it's obvious keith wasn't fully operational during the 75/76 jaunts, so it's easy to understand why woody was so "out front and center" then...and there was likely some basic carryover to '78...by the time '81 comes along, i'm sure keith wanted to reassert his position as the #1 guy, and there's only so much "space" to dole out, so as the kingpin, he gets to dictate, right? and it continued on like that as we hit '89....

Quote
Doxa
Would a term "Ronettes" to be equal to "Taylorites"?thumbs up smiley

LOL!!

Quote
liddas

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...

This is a very limited perspective.

Ron Wood's greatness with the faces (a part for co-writing some of their best songs) was his incredible sense of rhythm (with or without a slide, guitar or bass) and his ability to give different colours to whatever he was playing (his choice of instruments was never banal, but also his fingerings, style, use of the amp's ditortion). All this he translted to the Stones.

For what matters, as a slide player, technically speaking, Taylor was way better than Wood.

i agree with the taylor remark,

as for woody - sure, as the only guitarist in the faces, he held down all the chores, but as a lead player, his primary discipline was slide - and he was widely heralded as an innovative slide player....bonnie raitt, among others, cited him as her fave slide player. so, the lad joins the stones and where's that slide? on the sidelines for the most part....makes no sense, when you consider how much slide playing his predecessor employed....

Quote
71Tele
Well-written, yes. But I still disagree with the premise. Wood's artistic lift lasted all of one or two albums. It is his poor interpretation of Stones song from before his era in live shows that demonstrates his biggest weakness. Since I have made these points on other threads, I will leave it at that.

I understand where you are coming from ,but dont you think woodie would get bashed if he was doing note for note knockoffs of taylor's solos? to me woodie starts in the same place that taylor would but then takes it on his own journey which i like .dont get me wrong i love taylor and his wonderfull VIBRATO!

Quote
71Tele

I would disagree that any of those were stunning, except perhaps the El Mocambo live tracks you mentioned - which were all covers. His interpretations of Taylor-era songs are always below the standard Taylor set. It is only the degree to which that is true that has varied.

Well, they are stunning on my book.

Anyway, my point is that it is simply not true that Ron Wood could play well only on his own era's songs. Including MT's era songs.

But you are right that MT's era warhorses are tough to compete with.

There are reasons for this.

Most of the Stones pre-70s stuff didn't have a guitar solo. So to characterize them, the easiest thing to do is to play a solo on them. Easy becaus if the solo in great, the reinterpretation is great. And whatever you play can't be compared with what other's played.

But when the solo is not only there, but also it is one of those beauties that MT used to lay down, what do you do? Omit the solo? You can't. Play it your stile? Wrong. Play it in MT's style? Impossible!

Years ago the band I played in had a Pink Floyd fanatic and a Santana fanatic and we always had fights because they wanted to include (better, flood) our set list with floyd and santana stuff. Problem was that we had no Santana or Gilmour in the band, and you simply cannot play Confortly Numb or Oye como va in a Keith/Berry style ...

C

<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.

Quote
T&A

Quote
cc
Tod, any theory as to why keith suddenly competed for solo space? Are you saying that without the change on keith's part, ron might have kept a more prominent role?

well, i think it's obvious keith wasn't fully operational during the 75/76 jaunts, so it's easy to understand why woody was so "out front and center" then...and there was likely some basic carryover to '78...by the time '81 comes along, i'm sure keith wanted to reassert his position as the #1 guy, and there's only so much "space" to dole out, so as the kingpin, he gets to dictate, right? and it continued on like that as we hit '89....

here is my two cents worth .75/76 tour the stones still had the taylor/ richards formula working with ron taking taylors parts .then 78 rolls around with the new album some girls and then they started weaving more ditto for 81/82 .i think i recall a print interview with woodie where he said that he would play whatever that keef missed and keith would play whatever the woodie missed and it was kinda tongue and cheek with woodie saying that he was better than keef and keef saying no im better.so then 89 steel wheels tour and keef becomes a showman kinda like mick and less emphasis on keef natural rythym playing more solos and mugging and fast forward to where we are now .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-11 19:23 by The Greek.

Quote
Doxa

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.

Jagger gave the general directions for sure. But what sets the difference between the odd punk record and Some Girls is K/R's guitar work.

Quote
Doxa
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 this is exactly my point! With Keith in the band, the obvious solution would have been Keith does what he always did, and the new kid sticks to the solos, when needed. Fact is that Keith changed what was his way of playing for over 8 years (68-76). I think that this is a direct consequence of having Wood as a partner in the guitar section. What Wood made possible made Keith interested in evolving as a guitar player.

Quote
Doxa
Would a term "Ronettes" to be equal to "Taylorites"?><
- Doxa

With me you should come up with something like Tayloredwood ...

C

It is difficult to evaluate the influence that Ron has had on the Stones because around 1973-74, Ron started to play with the Stones quite frequently. Ron and the glimmer twins have the same musical tastes and they have probably influenced each others in ways that is impossible to define. The thing is that Ronnie never acted as a producer or he was never mentioned as such which means that although he may have brought songs and ideas he never put officially his stamp on a stones song. I am sure he could have, but that is Mick and Keith garded territory. No musician ever produced a stone album while being a rolling stone beside Mick and Keith.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

--------



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-12 01:24 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
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.

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.

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.