Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
71Tele
According to Keith's new book, Ronnie's edge was that he was English.

I remember that as well, and I think he mentions that back on 25x5, but IMO, it's an easy way of saying Perkins just didn't have the "look."

I hate to say it, but the Stones are as much about appearance as they are about the music.
It's what sells, along with their outrageous behavior over the years.

Perkins has a rather average look, from what I remember, and Stu actually was removed from the lineup mostly for this reason.
Perkins's name doesn't sound very "edgy" as well. Would he have had to change his last name as Bill did years earlier?

It's a shame really, and even discriminatory if playing for the Stones is considered a "real" job, but I'm certain Mick & Keith had these things in mind when making the decision.

It's the grim reality of "show biz."

I agree, and musician-wise, I would say Perkins, but at this point, I just can't imagine them without Ronnie. He was the perfect choice overall, he looked more like a Rolling Stone than they did. But I think it killed him as a musician.

I think Ronnie is a great guitarist, some of what I've heard on the Faces records I think is excellent, as good a guitar playing, on it's own level, as I've heard anywhere. But something about being Keith's second banana and (musical)sidekick ruined him. I think he still has the ability, especially when sober, but being in the Rolling Stones has not been good for him, both musically, and health-wise.

I'm not all that familiar with the Faces, so there are still times when I will hear something from them that is new to me, and knowing that Ronnie was the only guitar player, I'll think to myself, "That's Ronnie? What the hell happened with him, why doesn't he play like this now?". I think it's because the Stones muted his abilities, made him their court jester, and with Ronnie's good-time personality, he all too willingly let it happen.

Wayne barely looked the part even back then, and although the Stones love playing with guys from the American south, he didn't really fit in. I think that was a major issue, especially with Keith. Ronnie looked and acted the part from day one, but the box the Stones put him in, just didn't work for him as a musician. I think the same thing happened eventually with Mick Taylor. Unlike Ronnie, he was brought in as a full member, if I'm not mistaken, and I think he was initially led to believe he'd be able to contribute more and more as time went on. When that didn't happen so easily, especially when it came to getting proper credits for his contributions, he left. After that, I think Jagger and Keith wanted the next guy to just play guitar and keep his yap shut.

That probably would have worked fine with Wayne, he was use to being a sideman, a hired gun who does as he's told and doesn't expect anything more. But it eventually killed Ronnie as a musician with his own unique identity.

It killed The Rolling Stones as well. Their own fault. And now Keith is saying "I miss Mick Taylor ... a lot". Well, so do I.

Killed The Rolling Stones?? They made three extremely successful albums (SG, ER and TY), gained new fans, kept the old ones as well as managed to remain vital in the music business - something that seemed unlikely in 1974.

About the "Miss Taylor a lot" -statement from Keith. Have you heard him say that before, or do you think it just was a nice/wise thing to say in the midst of marketing the "new" Exile?

I'm sure Keith misses Taylor, but 1. He didn't say a lot (your addition) and 2. He didn't say it because he thought Ronnie was doing a poor job (as some may be mislead to believe by your repetitive exaggerations).

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
bustedtrousers

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
71Tele
According to Keith's new book, Ronnie's edge was that he was English.

I remember that as well, and I think he mentions that back on 25x5, but IMO, it's an easy way of saying Perkins just didn't have the "look."

I hate to say it, but the Stones are as much about appearance as they are about the music.
It's what sells, along with their outrageous behavior over the years.

Perkins has a rather average look, from what I remember, and Stu actually was removed from the lineup mostly for this reason.
Perkins's name doesn't sound very "edgy" as well. Would he have had to change his last name as Bill did years earlier?

It's a shame really, and even discriminatory if playing for the Stones is considered a "real" job, but I'm certain Mick & Keith had these things in mind when making the decision.

It's the grim reality of "show biz."

I agree, and musician-wise, I would say Perkins, but at this point, I just can't imagine them without Ronnie. He was the perfect choice overall, he looked more like a Rolling Stone than they did. But I think it killed him as a musician.

I think Ronnie is a great guitarist, some of what I've heard on the Faces records I think is excellent, as good a guitar playing, on it's own level, as I've heard anywhere. But something about being Keith's second banana and (musical)sidekick ruined him. I think he still has the ability, especially when sober, but being in the Rolling Stones has not been good for him, both musically, and health-wise.

I'm not all that familiar with the Faces, so there are still times when I will hear something from them that is new to me, and knowing that Ronnie was the only guitar player, I'll think to myself, "That's Ronnie? What the hell happened with him, why doesn't he play like this now?". I think it's because the Stones muted his abilities, made him their court jester, and with Ronnie's good-time personality, he all too willingly let it happen.

Wayne barely looked the part even back then, and although the Stones love playing with guys from the American south, he didn't really fit in. I think that was a major issue, especially with Keith. Ronnie looked and acted the part from day one, but the box the Stones put him in, just didn't work for him as a musician. I think the same thing happened eventually with Mick Taylor. Unlike Ronnie, he was brought in as a full member, if I'm not mistaken, and I think he was initially led to believe he'd be able to contribute more and more as time went on. When that didn't happen so easily, especially when it came to getting proper credits for his contributions, he left. After that, I think Jagger and Keith wanted the next guy to just play guitar and keep his yap shut.

That probably would have worked fine with Wayne, he was use to being a sideman, a hired gun who does as he's told and doesn't expect anything more. But it eventually killed Ronnie as a musician with his own unique identity.

It killed The Rolling Stones as well. Their own fault. And now Keith is saying "I miss Mick Taylor ... a lot". Well, so do I.

Killed The Rolling Stones?? They made three extremely successful albums (SG, ER and TY), gained new fans, kept the old ones as well as managed to remain vital in the music business - something that seemed unlikely in 1974.

About the "Miss Taylor a lot" -statement from Keith. Have you heard him say that before, or do you think it just was a nice/wise thing to say in the midst of marketing the "new" Exile?

I'm sure Keith misses Taylor, but 1. He didn't say a lot (your addition) and 2. He didn't say it because he thought Ronnie was doing a poor job (as some may be mislead to believe by your repetitive exaggerations).

Whatever you say, he absolutely said "a lot". There was a little pause between the words "I miss MT" and "a lot". Certainly not my fantasy. And I believe Keith here, it's too far fetched to think he said that for the money, but I know you defend Ronnie (well that does rhyme). You make a connection between Keith's quote and Wood. He misses Taylor a lot, that's it. It would be very strange if he didn't. As for the albums you mentioned: poor things compared to all former albums, however much successful they were. Music is not about selling numbers. You know that as well as I do.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Yeah, he did actually say "a lot", kleermaker. Checked the video now. But how serious was Keith in that interview Anyway, I think you're overreading Keith's response in that interview

IMO, it's hilarious to use that answer in different contexts as you do: "maybe that's why Keith misses him so much", ..."that killed The Rolling Stones - Keith is missing Taylor..." Ridiculous, imo.





And no, SG, ER and TY are NOT poor albums (except maybe for a very few Taylorites ). The majority of Stones fans actually like them. A world without Beast Of Burden, Before They Make Me Run, Little T + A, Start Me Up or Down In The Hole? Would have been sad, imo.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Mathijs
With Perkins they would never have survived the glamrock period and certainly not the punk period. Wood was vital new blood in outpunking the punks. Perkins is and was, just as Taylor, too much of a blues purist to be able to adjust to modern day music. Remember, it wasn't until Stevie Ray Vaughan that blues music and blues guitarists where revived.

And Wood could write songs, very important to Mick in the absence of Keith.

Mathijs

haha...who was "punk" in the Stones ? You reckon Keith was? you reckon Jagger was? fair dinkum...if you think those guys were then surely any clown (Ron, Wayne, MT etc..) would have join/followed along with their musical sound....good musicians change with the times...who f**king knows...for what it's worth I would have gone RW until he got too wasted/useless then "hired" another guitarist.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Mathijs
With Perkins they would never have survived the glamrock period and certainly not the punk period. Wood was vital new blood in outpunking the punks. Perkins is and was, just as Taylor, too much of a blues purist to be able to adjust to modern day music. Remember, it wasn't until Stevie Ray Vaughan that blues music and blues guitarists where revived.

And Wood could write songs, very important to Mick in the absence of Keith.

Mathijs

haha...who was "punk" in the Stones ? You reckon Keith was? you reckon Jagger was? fair dinkum...if you think those guys were then surely any clown (Ron, Wayne, MT etc..) would have join/followed along with their musical sound....good musicians change with the times...who f**king knows...for what it's worth I would have gone RW until he got too wasted/useless then "hired" another guitarist.

At the time, Some Girls (or songs like Lies, Whip, Respectable, Shattered) was considered the Stones answer to the punk movement -- and judging by the reviews at the time regarding this punk comparison, they were quite successful.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Mathijs
With Perkins they would never have survived the glamrock period and certainly not the punk period. Wood was vital new blood in outpunking the punks. Perkins is and was, just as Taylor, too much of a blues purist to be able to adjust to modern day music. Remember, it wasn't until Stevie Ray Vaughan that blues music and blues guitarists where revived.

And Wood could write songs, very important to Mick in the absence of Keith.

Mathijs

haha...who was "punk" in the Stones ? You reckon Keith was? you reckon Jagger was? fair dinkum...if you think those guys were then surely any clown (Ron, Wayne, MT etc..) would have join/followed along with their musical sound....good musicians change with the times...who f**king knows...for what it's worth I would have gone RW until he got too wasted/useless then "hired" another guitarist.

At the time, Some Girls (or songs like Lies, Whip, Respectable, Shattered) was considered the Stones answer to the punk movement -- and judging by the reviews at the time regarding this punk comparison, they were quite successful.

if you call Some Girls punk then Chuck Berry is heavy rock...sorry I disagree. It might be the closest thing the Stones have gone towards a punk sound...but it's still rock n' roll to me....isn't this why alot of Stones fans like this album?
Forget what the bloody critics say...

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
yeah and Keith reckons Muddy was painting the god damn ceiling...

it's hardly punk IMO

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
yeah and Keith reckons Muddy was painting the god damn ceiling...

it's hardly punk IMO

ok, but not too many care much about your opinion over those in the business -- and Muddy was painting the ceiling, also witnessed by Bill Wyman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
yeah and Keith reckons Muddy was painting the god damn ceiling...

it's hardly punk IMO

ok, but not too many care much about your opinion over those in the business -- and Muddy was painting the ceiling, also witnessed by Bill Wyman

sorry, forgot Bill was also very reliable...did you read his book ? also very accurate !

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
yep I agree with that - we'll leave it there.

What i was getting at was that people believe anything they read....and if they read Keith's new book...well...I won't go there!

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
yep I agree with that - we'll leave it there.

What i was getting at was that people believe anything they read....and if they read Keith's new book...well...I won't go there!

yes, but it seems that you just disbelieve anything you read -- and in this case (of Muddy) Keith & Bill were there so why would anyone else have better info than them? i'm pretty convinced that it's true.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Mathijs
With Perkins they would never have survived the glamrock period and certainly not the punk period. Wood was vital new blood in outpunking the punks. Perkins is and was, just as Taylor, too much of a blues purist to be able to adjust to modern day music. Remember, it wasn't until Stevie Ray Vaughan that blues music and blues guitarists where revived.

And Wood could write songs, very important to Mick in the absence of Keith.

Mathijs

haha...who was "punk" in the Stones ? You reckon Keith was? you reckon Jagger was? fair dinkum...if you think those guys were then surely any clown (Ron, Wayne, MT etc..) would have join/followed along with their musical sound....good musicians change with the times...who f**king knows...for what it's worth I would have gone RW until he got too wasted/useless then "hired" another guitarist.

At the time, Some Girls (or songs like Lies, Whip, Respectable, Shattered) was considered the Stones answer to the punk movement -- and judging by the reviews at the time regarding this punk comparison, they were quite successful.

if you call Some Girls punk then Chuck Berry is heavy rock...sorry I disagree. It might be the closest thing the Stones have gone towards a punk sound...but it's still rock n' roll to me....isn't this why alot of Stones fans like this album?
Forget what the bloody critics say...

Quote
stones78
Please, Muddy Waters was not painting the ceiling, that's just another one of Keith's fantasy tales. Maybe he wasn't selling as many records as in the early 50's but he was still a star.

Quote
kleermaker
There was a little pause between the words "I miss MT" and "a lot". Certainly not my fantasy.

Quote
ThankGod

Quote
kleermaker
There was a little pause between the words "I miss MT" and "a lot". Certainly not my fantasy.

Im afraid to say kleermaker that the pause most certainly IS your fantasy. Theres not even a hint of a pause.

Quote
Amsterdamned
Stupid question.