For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Isn't the sound Ronnie had on his brilliant lead on YCAGWYW at Glasto very similar to Taylor's sound back in the day?
Taylor could use that fat tone on Rambler, imo.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Isn't the sound Ronnie had on his brilliant lead on YCAGWYW at Glasto very similar to Taylor's sound back in the day?
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ronnie's lead was indeed beautiful. As for Taylor, it seems he could at least use a bit more distortion, don't you think?
Quote
svt22Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ronnie's lead was indeed beautiful. As for Taylor, it seems he could at least use a bit more distortion, don't you think?
Absolutely, but his playing skills have diminished drastically. I cannot make myself listen to him anymore - only some of his recent moments. That goes for the entire band actually, although it's great to see that Ron and Keith are sober, and the fans as well as the Stones are still enjoying themselves.
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
svt22Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ronnie's lead was indeed beautiful. As for Taylor, it seems he could at least use a bit more distortion, don't you think?
Absolutely, but his playing skills have diminished drastically. I cannot make myself listen to him anymore - only some of his recent moments. That goes for the entire band actually, although it's great to see that Ron and Keith are sober, and the fans as well as the Stones are still enjoying themselves.
Yes, possibly Ronnie was the star at Glastonbury. The feeling i got from the show is that we've seen the Stones play at the pretty much the peak of their powers, or at least seen them make the maximum effort they are prepared to put in, at this period in their career, where there was a more conscious effort being made for the tv audience to be a little more meticulous in their playing. However, i still feel with the exception of Ronnie, Charlie, and perhaps Jagger some of the time, the backing band contributed so very vitally, perhaps more than the band themselves at times, and especially Darly. I'm not sure it was one of Keith's best performances overall, although he had his moments, and like has been said previously, Mick Taylor seems woefully inconsistent. Those flashes of greatness from Taylor can often transcend a Stones performance so effectively, but when Taylor doesn't quite make it, it can result in great disappointment, and perhaps cast a shadow on the rest of the band's performance, even if they are playing better than usual, simply because the anticipation is there, that Taylor hasn't quite managed to fulfill. That of course, applies more to some of those who have followed the band over the longer period, the diehard fans, so to speak. I don't think that many of the Glastonbury crowd would quite see it like that.
I quite liked the performance of '2000 Light Years From Home' myself. That and a number of the other songs i could happily watch again. I also liked Ronnie's nod in 'Sympathy For The Devil' to the 69 arrangement of the song.
Quote
svt22Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
svt22Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ronnie's lead was indeed beautiful. As for Taylor, it seems he could at least use a bit more distortion, don't you think?
Absolutely, but his playing skills have diminished drastically. I cannot make myself listen to him anymore - only some of his recent moments. That goes for the entire band actually, although it's great to see that Ron and Keith are sober, and the fans as well as the Stones are still enjoying themselves.
Yes, possibly Ronnie was the star at Glastonbury. The feeling i got from the show is that we've seen the Stones play at the pretty much the peak of their powers, or at least seen them make the maximum effort they are prepared to put in, at this period in their career, where there was a more conscious effort being made for the tv audience to be a little more meticulous in their playing. However, i still feel with the exception of Ronnie, Charlie, and perhaps Jagger some of the time, the backing band contributed so very vitally, perhaps more than the band themselves at times, and especially Darly. I'm not sure it was one of Keith's best performances overall, although he had his moments, and like has been said previously, Mick Taylor seems woefully inconsistent. Those flashes of greatness from Taylor can often transcend a Stones performance so effectively, but when Taylor doesn't quite make it, it can result in great disappointment, and perhaps cast a shadow on the rest of the band's performance, even if they are playing better than usual, simply because the anticipation is there, that Taylor hasn't quite managed to fulfill. That of course, applies more to some of those who have followed the band over the longer period, the diehard fans, so to speak. I don't think that many of the Glastonbury crowd would quite see it like that.
I quite liked the performance of '2000 Light Years From Home' myself. That and a number of the other songs i could happily watch again. I also liked Ronnie's nod in 'Sympathy For The Devil' to the 69 arrangement of the song.
I think you basically nailed it very well.
I was quite surprised by the splendid piano parts on 2000LY btw, I think the Stones owe this player a lot. The guy played brilliant, he lifted the song to a higher level.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Ronnie's lead was indeed beautiful. As for Taylor, it seems he could at least use a bit more distortion, don't you think?
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
DandelionPowderman
Ronnie's lead was indeed beautiful. As for Taylor, it seems he could at least use a bit more distortion, don't you think?
Ronnie's use of the Les Paul gave him a nice fat rich tone to play with and that really gave that Glasto YCAGWYW a real touch of elegance. Ronnie was in truly rare form in that moment. It wouldn't have gone nearly so well if he'd used the Strat, where it would have sounded thin and flat for that tune, which somehow demands the majestic fullness of a Gibson.
But I don't agree that Taylor would benefit from more distortion. Playing clean soaring lines has always been Taylor's thing, and I would think that too much distortion would cloud the melody of Taylor's lead runs--like the playout of CYHMK, just let him do those clear jazzy dips and rises a la Mike Bloomfield on East-West. Too much distortion in a moment like that would be like slathering an eagle with BP oil and expecting it to appear graceful and it glides and swoops about.
Quote
stoneheartedQuote
DandelionPowderman
Ronnie's lead was indeed beautiful. As for Taylor, it seems he could at least use a bit more distortion, don't you think?
Ronnie's use of the Les Paul gave him a nice fat rich tone to play with and that really gave that Glasto YCAGWYW a real touch of elegance. Ronnie was in truly rare form in that moment. It wouldn't have gone nearly so well if he'd used the Strat, where it would have sounded thin and flat for that tune, which somehow demands the majestic fullness of a Gibson.
But I don't agree that Taylor would benefit from more distortion. Playing clean soaring lines has always been Taylor's thing, and I would think that too much distortion would cloud the melody of Taylor's lead runs--like the playout of CYHMK, just let him do those clear jazzy dips and rises a la Mike Bloomfield on East-West. Too much distortion in a moment like that would be like slathering an eagle with BP oil and expecting it to appear graceful and it glides and swoops about.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Here it is, from 51:53
If one likes it is a matter of taste, but his tone should be undisputable.
I'm not necessarily talking fluidity, rather sustain, thickness and warmness. It's very similar to the 1973 Taylor tone, imo.
Wouldn't hurt at all.Quote
DandelionPowderman
He uses a Blues Driver, but he could use more distortion from it, imo.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
The thread title refers to the SOUND, and Taylor could use that sound to get his touch back. He has to work much harder to keep both fluidity and tone with the more spikey sound he has today, imo.