Quote
Koen

Quote
71Tele
This is a wonderful example of the logic of many Ronnie fans. They admit that they don't care is he is less talented. Looks and length of time in the band trump ability and musical contribution.

He would have left or been sacked a long time ago if he weren't the right fit. The fact that he is still around says nothing about 'Ronnie fans' caring about his talents or liking his musical abilities, but more about how the rest of the band feels about him. He must be doing something right.

OK, if you say so...I think it has had more to do with the simple fact that Keith has protected him.

he is small, thin and a clown nobody really takes him serious and he hasn't hurt nobody no keith no Mick

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Koen
From the first time young Ronnie Wood saw the Stones play he was destined to be and wanted to be in the band. It took him a couple of years, but he's kept his promise and is still around. He looks like a Stone, plays like a Stone and probably @#$%& like a Stone as well. Jones and Taylor may have had better qualities and/or talents, but that doesn't matter anymore, Wood's been with the band for more than 30 years now.

This is a wonderful example of the logic of many Ronnie fans. They admit that they don't care if he is less talented. Looks and length of time in the band trump ability and musical contribution.

Funnily, if the length of time plus the effect on actual output is concerned, I think the mentioned Chuck Leavell should be taken under concern. His effect on The Stones actual live sound since 1989 is much stronger than Ronnie Wood's relatively short period of actual influence (the tours of 1978 and 1981/82). Actually, Chuck might be the person who had most contributed "evolving" the Stones sound since Taylor... (yeah, the reality bites).

I have learn to love The Rolling Stones through a Wood era, and that's the version of the band I most love (I mean the band from 1975 to 1983 - I don't count the 'Vegas'/Leavell era for that). But if I look objectively the history of the band I know that it just the third and the least significant era of the band. There is one awesome album (SOME GIRLS), another great album (TATTOO YOU) and few awesome tracks but most of it pales in comparision to Jones and Taylor eras that are full of classic albums and songs that once defined the band.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-10 20:20 by Doxa.

Quote
jamesjagger
he is small, thin and a clown nobody really takes him serious and he hasn't hurt nobody no keith no Mick

ok...so which member of the band then, are you describing?

So a silly thread to begin with degenerates into more bashing of a guy who's played guitar with the band for over 35 years. Ah the joys of IORR.

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
So a silly thread to begin with degenerates into more bashing of a guy who's played guitar with the band for over 35 years. Ah the joys of IORR.

One person's "bashing" is another person's thoughtful and valid criticism.

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
So a silly thread to begin with degenerates into more bashing of a guy who's played guitar with the band for over 35 years. Ah the joys of IORR.

Way to bash the bashers!

For the record, let's not forget that Ronnie was a key enabler for Keith and I don't mean musically.


For those who keep bringing up Brian Jones, let me say that I saw hm with the Stones in 1966 and he was terrific and multi-talented in a way few muscians can be, including Ronnie Wood. However, Brian would also prove to be a mess as a person.

Quote
stones78
I don't get it about Ronnie "looking like a Stone"...if all you're gonna care about is looks, Ronnie looks like a poor copy of Keith Richards.

Actually that might be the other way around these days.

As an aside, while Bill Wyman, among others, did credit Ronnie Wood for making the band fun again, and by implication keeping it together, Wyman also expressed that he preferred Woody's playing when he first joined as he had his own style, but then noted that he just became Keith's shadow musically.

Ronnie still has ...enthusiasm. Don't see it in the other guys. Ronnie seems to be keeping in practice playing gigs. IMO, he will be the catalyst to get the Stones rolling again.

Quote
Midnight Toker
Ronnie still has ...enthusiasm. Don't see it in the other guys. Ronnie seems to be keeping in practice playing gigs. IMO, he will be the catalyst to get the Stones rolling again.

Enthusiasm is half the battle in rock & roll, agreed. And it seems to be lacking from this band in recent years.

Quote
71Tele
[One person's "bashing" is another person's thoughtful and valid criticism.

Next time I'll use the Quote This Message option. I don't have a problem with thoughtful and valid criticism even when I don't agree. Sorry for lumping all of the "bashers" together. It wasn't my intent.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
StonesTod
now let's talk about chuck leavell. he seems/feels like an original band member, no?

Yep, but the band is not the Rolling Stones...

Chuck Leavell is an original band member of Sea Level.

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard

Quote
71Tele
[One person's "bashing" is another person's thoughtful and valid criticism.

Next time I'll use the Quote This Message option. I don't have a problem with thoughtful and valid criticism even when I don't agree. Sorry for lumping all of the "bashers" together. It wasn't my intent.

Ah, I'm so often accused of being a "basher" I just assumed you were doing it. My fault, and I extend my sincerest regrets.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Koen
From the first time young Ronnie Wood saw the Stones play he was destined to be and wanted to be in the band. It took him a couple of years, but he's kept his promise and is still around. He looks like a Stone, plays like a Stone and probably @#$%& like a Stone as well. Jones and Taylor may have had better qualities and/or talents, but that doesn't matter anymore, Wood's been with the band for more than 30 years now.

This is a wonderful example of the logic of many Ronnie fans. They admit that they don't care if he is less talented. Looks and length of time in the band trump ability and musical contribution.

Actually, it is playing ability. Mick Taylor is glorious. I just feel that an excellent rhythm guitarist such as Wood is better to fit into and become a part of the singular Stones rhythm section rather than listening to the rhythm section of Richards/Wyman/Watts then playing over or on top of it.

Quote
Carnaby

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Koen
From the first time young Ronnie Wood saw the Stones play he was destined to be and wanted to be in the band. It took him a couple of years, but he's kept his promise and is still around. He looks like a Stone, plays like a Stone and probably @#$%& like a Stone as well. Jones and Taylor may have had better qualities and/or talents, but that doesn't matter anymore, Wood's been with the band for more than 30 years now.

This is a wonderful example of the logic of many Ronnie fans. They admit that they don't care if he is less talented. Looks and length of time in the band trump ability and musical contribution.

Actually, it is playing ability. Mick Taylor is glorious. I just feel that an excellent rhythm guitarist such as Wood is better to fit into and become a part of the singular Stones rhythm section rather than listening to the rhythm section of Richards/Wyman/Watts then playing over or on top of it.

Well, at least that is a musical point, though I don't necessarily agree with it. It does seem to me the rhythm/lead thing in the group has been more driven by what Keith wants to do at any particular time than any choices Taylor or Wood made. For example, contrast 1969, where Taylor was playing a lot of rhythm, with 1972 and '73, where Keith was much more into the driving Open G rhythm. Those who malign Taylor for playing too much lead are not really being fair. What else was he supposed to do after Keith adopted this rhythmic approach?

Quote
Midnight Toker
Ronnie still has ...enthusiasm. Don't see it in the other guys. Ronnie seems to be keeping in practice playing gigs. IMO, he will be the catalyst to get the Stones rolling again.

I believe Ronnie's abilities to function as a mediator disappeared when the door was shut for him to contribute musical ideas. Moving from a salaried permanent sideman to an actual fully-vested Stone was his creative undoing as far as Mick and/or Keith were concerned or so it appears in retrospect.

After VOODOO LOUNGE (where Ronnie's playing was strong but where he was largely assigned a space for slide guitar and told what to do) his role has been reduced considerably ever since to the point where his sessions with the band over the past 14 years could literally have been performed by any number of talented session guitarists.

More than any reflection on Ronnie's skills, I see it as symptomatic of how the band has shifted from a fully-functioning group to a unit that now records tracks piecemeal. The turning point in this gradual disintegration was Mick and Keith's collective solo sessions [B2B] which gave way to the Mick-dominated in-name-only band efforts of the past decade.

From that perspective, I'm less inclined to believe that the current situation has as much to do with Mick's hurt feelings over Keith's book than it does a cynical view that developed over time that Mick is solely responsible for fashioning Stones "product."

Whether Keith has truly bounced back creatively with his current solo sessions remains to be seen. I am still unsure whether his muse deserted him after B2B or if he was relegated to the sideman role by Jagger as the only option for the Stones to move forward over the past decade.

In any event, the band's live identity has failed to evolve since the STEEL WHEELS tour. Continued creative expression was once the driving force for touring. This became divorced to the point that their ongoing tribute show celebrating their own back catalog has long since superceded any confidence in their own creative abilities past the early eighties. Growing audience antipathy toward new material is only underscored by their reluctance to perform it. Albums lost any claim to relevance when they appeared to just be cynical marketing tie-in's for the latest Concert Event World Tour.

At this point, exhausted and spent I'll climb down from my soap box while the Ronnie sucks contingent prepares to hurl fresh fruit my way.

Maligning Keith and Taylor live in '73 in my opinionated view is just as pointless as bashing Wood for not being Taylor. The band faltered for various reasons when Taylor left but regained their footing and made a triumphant return to form with SOME GIRLS indelibly stamped with Mr. Wood's contributions. I've already detailed why I think the band has fallen apart since then. I don't blame Wood for not being Taylor as the reason.

Quite honestly had Mick Taylor stayed in the band, I don't think we would have had better music so much as another tragic death in the band (or two). I love Taylor's playing. I love this band and to separate Taylor for taking the spotlight from Keith (in fact, his assigned role at the time) is as silly a notion as saying he didn't look like a Stone. Watch LADIES AND GENTLEMEN and tell me any of them don't belong (okay maybe Bobby's overzealous tambourine-playing at the finale, but that's the only odd moment) onstage creating that fantastic mixture of amateurish sloppiness and transcendent perfection. That's the magic formula. It wasn't the same one they had with Ronnie, but it was there, too for a time. Age, abuse and ego have diminished that magic, but it's still there once in awhile. Cleveland 2002 was an example I witnessed. I'd argue it's still there in Austin 2006 to an extent. If you suggest the Beacon 2006, I'll suspect you're only dazzled by camerawork and their unseemly energy as the actual performance was crap both nights. Just my two cents.

Good points, WPM (and I won't be hurling any fruit!). I never blame Wood for the decline in the band's creative output. That would indeed be unfair. Contrast Ronnie's role in the Faces - where he was basically musical director - to his role in the Stones, which was much diminished. Keith's stronger ego forced Ronnie into the "sidekick" role, which unfortunately he was unwilling or unable to fight against. Taylor struggled with the contrast between his growing confidence as a musician and his lesser role in the band, and decided leaving was the answer. It must be a very difficult thing to be the "other" guitarist in the Rolling Stones. None of the three people in that role seem to have thrived personally. Ronnie has lasted, sure, but at what cost, given his many problems?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-10 22:53 by 71Tele.

Listening to and/or watching shows from '72 and '73, it always seems as if Keith enjoys Taylor's very distinct lead playing. Partly I suspect it was Taylor's humble nature. While I'm sure he had an ego, he didn't act it on stage, he was just lost in the moment. That is something Keith certainly used to aspire to.

Keith and Ronnie's roles were very different than Keith and Taylor and while the ancient art of weaving bit is more a great sound byte than reality there were times where their guitar interplay was beautiful (most of SOME GIRLS) whereas later Ronnie seemed to be around to toss off short solos as the band fell into a different mode altogether. There were, of course, happy exceptions such as the solo at the end of something like "Anybody Seen My Baby." Honestly, I sometimes wonder if the evaluation of Ronnie's era wouldn't be different had the "modern" Stones not turned into an oldies act who invited (largely unfavorable) comparisons with past glories.

As an aside, I never thought of you as a "Woody sucks" guy so much as a fan with strong opinions who expressed himself well. When I'm not busy being an @#$%&, I aspire to the same.

Ronnie always reminded me a bit of this guy...



Don't stop.... believing....

[thepowergoats.com]

That's cold!

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
Listening to and/or watching shows from '72 and '73, it always seems as if Keith enjoys Taylor's very distinct lead playing. Partly I suspect it was Taylor's humble nature. While I'm sure he had an ego, he didn't act it on stage, he was just lost in the moment. That is something Keith certainly used to aspire to.

Keith and Ronnie's roles were very different than Keith and Taylor and while the ancient art of weaving bit is more a great sound byte than reality there were times where their guitar interplay was beautiful (most of SOME GIRLS) whereas later Ronnie seemed to be around to toss off short solos as the band fell into a different mode altogether. There were, of course, happy exceptions such as the solo at the end of something like "Anybody Seen My Baby." Honestly, I sometimes wonder if the evaluation of Ronnie's era wouldn't be different had the "modern" Stones not turned into an oldies act who invited (largely unfavorable) comparisons with past glories.

As an aside, I never thought of you as a "Woody sucks" guy so much as a fan with strong opinions who expressed himself well. When I'm not busy being an @#$%&, I aspire to the same.

Thanks...I agree that they really had something going with the Some Girls guitar sound. Don't forget, on many of those tracks Mr. Jagger was playing as well. I called it the "Three Guitar Assault", and I loved it (Woody fans may be surprised to hear me say this). I think "Beast Of Burden" is one of the best things the group did in any of the three lineups. Too bad there wasn't much more of it after 1981.

As to live shows, afer 1981 Wood became much more of a "supporting" player (and that's putting it kindly). From Steel Wheels tour through Voodoo and Bridges, the guitars were really a mess. Contrary to any art of "weaving" (ancient or otherwise) it was really the Keith Richards Show, with little Ronnie getting in a few licks here and there - and those were usually not very special. This state of affairs was not helped by Ronnie's, um, state of mind, for most of '89-2002 or so. The balance only tipped back later when Keith's skills started to decline.

I actually agree with everything you say, with one clarification - I was never knocked out with Keith's playing with the Stones (1989 - 2007) compared with his playing with the Winos (1988 -1993). As rough and ramshackle as the Winos were, Keith really seemed in love with music at most of those shows. He really played and got lost in music.

The STEEL WHEELS tour forward is what I think of as the "Winning Ugly" Keith. Whether you hate the track or not, that one song on DIRTY WORK is a crucial transition for Keith stepping into a different role than what he seemed comfortable with or suited to in my view. For me, it involves a lot of posing and posturing with his instrument that had never been part of the Stones sound before this time by any of the four guitarists. For all the abuse SFTD's solo (deservedly) takes since the STEEL WHEELS tour, have a listen to his solo on "Happy" on AT THE MAX. This is Keith playing absolute crap, not lost in music so much as lost in adulation. That's not who he was on stage through 1982 or with the Winos. That's the Keith I miss and the guy that I hope has rediscovered something that's been missing from his life with his current sessions.

I agree the "Los Trios Guitarros" sound of SOME GIRLS (which last appeared on "High Wire") was a joy, but the purity of the two interlocking guitars is what made "Beast of Burden" and "Shattered" special. Starting with UNDERCOVER, Ronnie was there to play fill in the blanks with an abbreviated solo. There was no joy any more (although their playing on DIRTY WORK is sometimes quite good, the songs and production robs it of any joy). The times it has gelled since then are few and far between. I'm rather partial to the 1990's studio work even though it is flawed, but it seems to be the work of a completely different band than the one who toured througout the decade.

Quote
SweetThing

Quote
stones78
I don't get it about Ronnie "looking like a Stone"...if all you're gonna care about is looks, Ronnie looks like a poor copy of Keith Richards.

Actually that might be the other way around these days.

You mean Keith now looks like a copy of Ronnie?

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
I actually agree with everything you say, with one clarification - I was never knocked out with Keith's playing with the Stones (1989 - 2007) compared with his playing with the Winos (1988 -1993). As rough and ramshackle as the Winos were, Keith really seemed in love with music at most of those shows. He really played and got lost in music.

The STEEL WHEELS tour forward is what I think of as the "Winning Ugly" Keith. Whether you hate the track or not, that one song on DIRTY WORK is a crucial transition for Keith stepping into a different role than what he seemed comfortable with or suited to in my view. For me, it involves a lot of posing and posturing with his instrument that had never been part of the Stones sound before this time by any of the four guitarists. For all the abuse SFTD's solo (deservedly) takes since the STEEL WHEELS tour, have a listen to his solo on "Happy" on AT THE MAX. This is Keith playing absolute crap, not lost in music so much as lost in adulation. That's not who he was on stage through 1982 or with the Winos. That's the Keith I miss and the guy that I hope has rediscovered something that's been missing from his life with his current sessions.

I agree the "Los Trios Guitarros" sound of SOME GIRLS (which last appeared on "High Wire") was a joy, but the purity of the two interlocking guitars is what made "Beast of Burden" and "Shattered" special. Starting with UNDERCOVER, Ronnie was there to play fill in the blanks with an abbreviated solo. There was no joy any more (although their playing on DIRTY WORK is sometimes quite good, the songs and production robs it of any joy). The times it has gelled since then are few and far between. I'm rather partial to the 1990's studio work even though it is flawed, but it seems to be the work of a completely different band than the one who toured througout the decade.

Hmm...a lot of people seem to really like the Winos. I have the same problem with the Winos as I do with the Keith/Woody combo: Too much Keith. Let me explain: I think Keith is best when he has a musical equal to challenge and balance him. That would be Jagger in regards to songwriting,and Taylor in regards to guitar. When Keith is with lesser mortals (Winos, Woody) in those roles, we get a less-great Keith, imo.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
I actually agree with everything you say, with one clarification - I was never knocked out with Keith's playing with the Stones (1989 - 2007) compared with his playing with the Winos (1988 -1993). As rough and ramshackle as the Winos were, Keith really seemed in love with music at most of those shows. He really played and got lost in music.

The STEEL WHEELS tour forward is what I think of as the "Winning Ugly" Keith. Whether you hate the track or not, that one song on DIRTY WORK is a crucial transition for Keith stepping into a different role than what he seemed comfortable with or suited to in my view. For me, it involves a lot of posing and posturing with his instrument that had never been part of the Stones sound before this time by any of the four guitarists. For all the abuse SFTD's solo (deservedly) takes since the STEEL WHEELS tour, have a listen to his solo on "Happy" on AT THE MAX. This is Keith playing absolute crap, not lost in music so much as lost in adulation. That's not who he was on stage through 1982 or with the Winos. That's the Keith I miss and the guy that I hope has rediscovered something that's been missing from his life with his current sessions.

I agree the "Los Trios Guitarros" sound of SOME GIRLS (which last appeared on "High Wire") was a joy, but the purity of the two interlocking guitars is what made "Beast of Burden" and "Shattered" special. Starting with UNDERCOVER, Ronnie was there to play fill in the blanks with an abbreviated solo. There was no joy any more (although their playing on DIRTY WORK is sometimes quite good, the songs and production robs it of any joy). The times it has gelled since then are few and far between. I'm rather partial to the 1990's studio work even though it is flawed, but it seems to be the work of a completely different band than the one who toured througout the decade.

Hmm...a lot of people seem to really like the Winos. I have the same problem with the Winos as I do with the Keith/Woody combo: Too much Keith. Let me explain: I think Keith is best when he has a musical equal to challenge and balance him. That would be Jagger in regards to songwriting,and Taylor in regards to guitar. When Keith is with lesser mortals (Winos, Woody) in those roles, we get a less-great Keith, imo.

What I get from that, is that Keith is slightly lazy, which I agree if it is maybe what you are getting at. I think this is also confirmed in his book (a riff and a phrase are channelled to him in his dreams and he hands it over to Jagger to finish).

I think he woke up at some point in the 80's from the drug haze, and didnt' know what to do with himself. The previous success, at least the last 10-15 years were on smack, so now what?

and keith played out of his mind drunk his whole career among other things

The previous success, at least the last 10-15 years were on smack, so now what?

......lemon juice???



ROCKMAN

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
71Tele

Quote
WilliamPatrickMaynard
I actually agree with everything you say, with one clarification - I was never knocked out with Keith's playing with the Stones (1989 - 2007) compared with his playing with the Winos (1988 -1993). As rough and ramshackle as the Winos were, Keith really seemed in love with music at most of those shows. He really played and got lost in music.

The STEEL WHEELS tour forward is what I think of as the "Winning Ugly" Keith. Whether you hate the track or not, that one song on DIRTY WORK is a crucial transition for Keith stepping into a different role than what he seemed comfortable with or suited to in my view. For me, it involves a lot of posing and posturing with his instrument that had never been part of the Stones sound before this time by any of the four guitarists. For all the abuse SFTD's solo (deservedly) takes since the STEEL WHEELS tour, have a listen to his solo on "Happy" on AT THE MAX. This is Keith playing absolute crap, not lost in music so much as lost in adulation. That's not who he was on stage through 1982 or with the Winos. That's the Keith I miss and the guy that I hope has rediscovered something that's been missing from his life with his current sessions.

I agree the "Los Trios Guitarros" sound of SOME GIRLS (which last appeared on "High Wire") was a joy, but the purity of the two interlocking guitars is what made "Beast of Burden" and "Shattered" special. Starting with UNDERCOVER, Ronnie was there to play fill in the blanks with an abbreviated solo. There was no joy any more (although their playing on DIRTY WORK is sometimes quite good, the songs and production robs it of any joy). The times it has gelled since then are few and far between. I'm rather partial to the 1990's studio work even though it is flawed, but it seems to be the work of a completely different band than the one who toured througout the decade.

Hmm...a lot of people seem to really like the Winos. I have the same problem with the Winos as I do with the Keith/Woody combo: Too much Keith. Let me explain: I think Keith is best when he has a musical equal to challenge and balance him. That would be Jagger in regards to songwriting,and Taylor in regards to guitar. When Keith is with lesser mortals (Winos, Woody) in those roles, we get a less-great Keith, imo.

What I get from that, is that Keith is slightly lazy, which I agree if it is maybe what you are getting at. I think this is also confirmed in his book (a riff and a phrase are channelled to him in his dreams and he hands it over to Jagger to finish).

I think he woke up at some point in the 80's from the drug haze, and didnt' know what to do with himself. The previous success, at least the last 10-15 years were on smack, so now what?

Well, he used to actually write songs (like "Ruby Tuesday" or the many great collaborations with Jagger). Since the 80s he writes fragments that pass for songs, or writes by committee. Neither is as satisfying.