Tell Me :
Talk
Fair enough, Ronnie's solos are less structured, but does this really mean something? As a matter of fact his solos can be (and usually are) very emotional, moving and exciting. That is what counts. What he pours out is a disordered stream of emotions. He probably is a more disordered person to start with.
MT himself, no matter the beautiful structures, if he didn't have the ability hit THOSE particular notes and THOSE sounds in his solos that transcend any "technical" explanation but go right straight to the heart, he would be just the umpteenth good, clean, guitar player.
There is no "correct" way to solo in improvised music. When effective Chuck B can be just as good as John McLaughlin.
I accept the fact that one can prefer one to the other. But our preferences should be determined by our individual sensibilities only.
No need to further justify our preferences.
In particular when the matter of discussion are two HUGE artists like MT and RW.
C
"Less structured" is putting it kindly. At best they lack structure, at worst they are very unfocused, even sloppy.
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
Exactly.
And my point is does the "traditional" structure of a solo really matter?
It's like discussing the rules of perspective in abstract painting.
C
the only thing that matters is whether you like something or not. there is no right or wrong or better or worse in these matters, as a matter of fact.
All that matters is whether the musician/performer gets across what he or she wants to get across. In rock & roll, improvised as as good as structured. But there is good improvisation and bad improvisation.
which is in the ear of the beholder....in other words, if you like it, it's good.
Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord, I'll run 20 red lights in you honor on my way back home tonight!
C
(and same words for my response)
- Doxa
I really have trouble with this line of thinking for two reasons:
1. Keith chose to focus almost exclusively on rhythm in 1972-73. I would even say he perfected his rhythm chops during that period. Someone described his rhythm as "slashing" which I think is a really good description. Just listen to what he does on YCAGWYY and others. It's not like Taylor imposed this idea of playing melodic leads on everything. It's the way the band (really meaning Keith) chose to work out the guitar parts.
2. Wood soloed about as much as Taylor initially. In fact, he was trying to ape Taylor's parts on a number of tunes, expecially 1975-78. So if you have two guys playing roughly the equal amount of solos on the basically the same songs, why give Taylor grief for soloing "too much". Seems to me it's a question of who is the better soloist, or at least which one you prefer.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 22:58 by 71Tele.
Yes you can. Reasoning is reasoning. Someone lays out an argument and it either stands up or it doesn't. That's a different matter from someone prefering something, which is of course subjective. I never said anyone shouldn't like what they like. I merely thought the argument ("Taylor's constant soloing" ) was weak. Just like the argument that Ronnie is great musically for the Stones because of his looks or longevity in the band. Poor reasoning. Gwen admits she likes the "sloppy" Stones better, and that part of the post I won't take exception to because it's just preference. The problem with the "sloppy" Stones was that one night they would be brilliant and another they would be awful. Or maybe it isn't a problem at all. If you prefer the sloppy Stones, that is. I witnessed both in 1978.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 23:05 by 71Tele.
you disagree with gwen's preference of liking sloppy rock'n'roll...but that's a pretty solid reason....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 23:05 by StonesTod.
See my edited post. I tried to clarify a bit...I'm a sloppy poster lately. I prefer my earlier, more structured posts.
thanks for trying, anyway. you're talking to a guy who thinks chuck leavell's the best part of the act, so whaddya gonna do?
Really?
love the chuckster...no chuck, no stones....
It's quite difficult to express, really. For some songs (let's say, straight rockers, chuck-berry style) I like Ron's leads better, for others I will like Mick's better (Sway). At the Stu shows, I really liked both of them - Ronnie was driving Little Queenie and Mick was brilliant on more traditional blues stuff.
I didn't use a clock, but I feel there is more soloing on Brussel's Rambler and L&G's Ramblers, during the breaks and verses especially. Maybe I tire more easily of Mick's soloing, who knows. It's very subjective.
I'm a he-gwen by the way - much to Bill Wyman's dismay.
Hmm....
you have a problem with my line of reasoning?
Sorry, gwen. I knew I should have asked before assuming your gender...I really prefer the 1969 Berry stuff with Richards/Taylor. Taylor is mostly playing rhythm, but adds some very tasty runs.
No, just your sanity.
Yeah, and very often the "story" is scripted, and you know what you'll get the next time. It's like reading your favorite book for the fifth time.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: December 5, 2011 18:05
Quote
Doxa
With Ronnie I never hear stories there but just guitar playing, that is okay at best. I am not any Taylorite but I don't see a point in trying to be a Ronnie apologist as far as playing the guitar solos goes. That's Taylor's kingdom. Taylor was/is expectional in that area.
- Doxa
Fair enough, Ronnie's solos are less structured, but does this really mean something? As a matter of fact his solos can be (and usually are) very emotional, moving and exciting. That is what counts. What he pours out is a disordered stream of emotions. He probably is a more disordered person to start with.
MT himself, no matter the beautiful structures, if he didn't have the ability hit THOSE particular notes and THOSE sounds in his solos that transcend any "technical" explanation but go right straight to the heart, he would be just the umpteenth good, clean, guitar player.
There is no "correct" way to solo in improvised music. When effective Chuck B can be just as good as John McLaughlin.
I accept the fact that one can prefer one to the other. But our preferences should be determined by our individual sensibilities only.
No need to further justify our preferences.
In particular when the matter of discussion are two HUGE artists like MT and RW.
C
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: December 5, 2011 18:08
Just add smiles and whatever to my earlier post. Seems quite harsh on second read, but that was not my intention.
C
C
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 5, 2011 18:18
Quote
liddasQuote
Doxa
With Ronnie I never hear stories there but just guitar playing, that is okay at best. I am not any Taylorite but I don't see a point in trying to be a Ronnie apologist as far as playing the guitar solos goes. That's Taylor's kingdom. Taylor was/is expectional in that area.
- Doxa
Fair enough, Ronnie's solos are less structured, but does this really mean something? As a matter of fact his solos can be (and usually are) very emotional, moving and exciting. That is what counts. What he pours out is a disordered stream of emotions. He probably is a more disordered person to start with.
MT himself, no matter the beautiful structures, if he didn't have the ability hit THOSE particular notes and THOSE sounds in his solos that transcend any "technical" explanation but go right straight to the heart, he would be just the umpteenth good, clean, guitar player.
There is no "correct" way to solo in improvised music. When effective Chuck B can be just as good as John McLaughlin.
I accept the fact that one can prefer one to the other. But our preferences should be determined by our individual sensibilities only.
No need to further justify our preferences.
In particular when the matter of discussion are two HUGE artists like MT and RW.
C
"Less structured" is putting it kindly. At best they lack structure, at worst they are very unfocused, even sloppy.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
marcovandereijk
()
Date: December 5, 2011 18:20
Quote
liddas
No need to further justify our preferences.
In particular when the matter of discussion are two HUGE artists like MT and RW.
Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 5, 2011 18:39
Quote
liddas
Just add smiles and whatever to my earlier post. Seems quite harsh on second read, but that was not my intention.
C
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 5, 2011 18:39
i wouldn't call woody's solo improvised...what he does on his leads is play figures or runs and compiles them together in a solo...whereas a guy like MT actually plays a coherent solo...much in the style of jazz soloists...where's there's a story being told...there's a beginning, a middle and an end...
not saying one is superior to the other, but woody (much like keith) doesn't/can't really craft a true solo in the traditional sense....
not saying one is superior to the other, but woody (much like keith) doesn't/can't really craft a true solo in the traditional sense....
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: December 5, 2011 18:47
Quote
StonesTod
not saying one is superior to the other, but woody (much like keith) doesn't/can't really craft a true solo in the traditional sense....
Exactly.
And my point is does the "traditional" structure of a solo really matter?
It's like discussing the rules of perspective in abstract painting.
C
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 5, 2011 18:53
Quote
liddasQuote
StonesTod
not saying one is superior to the other, but woody (much like keith) doesn't/can't really craft a true solo in the traditional sense....
Exactly.
And my point is does the "traditional" structure of a solo really matter?
It's like discussing the rules of perspective in abstract painting.
C
the only thing that matters is whether you like something or not. there is no right or wrong or better or worse in these matters, as a matter of fact.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 5, 2011 18:58
Quote
liddasQuote
StonesTod
not saying one is superior to the other, but woody (much like keith) doesn't/can't really craft a true solo in the traditional sense....
Exactly.
And my point is does the "traditional" structure of a solo really matter?
It's like discussing the rules of perspective in abstract painting.
C
All that matters is whether the musician/performer gets across what he or she wants to get across. In rock & roll, improvised as as good as structured. But there is good improvisation and bad improvisation.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 5, 2011 19:01
Quote
71TeleQuote
liddasQuote
StonesTod
not saying one is superior to the other, but woody (much like keith) doesn't/can't really craft a true solo in the traditional sense....
Exactly.
And my point is does the "traditional" structure of a solo really matter?
It's like discussing the rules of perspective in abstract painting.
C
All that matters is whether the musician/performer gets across what he or she wants to get across. In rock & roll, improvised as as good as structured. But there is good improvisation and bad improvisation.
which is in the ear of the beholder....in other words, if you like it, it's good.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: December 5, 2011 19:04
Quote
AmsterdamnedQuote
liddas
Just add smiles and whatever to my earlier post. Seems quite harsh on second read, but that was not my intention.
C
Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord, I'll run 20 red lights in you honor on my way back home tonight!
C
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Loudei
()
Date: December 5, 2011 19:10
Ronnie Wood, like Keith is a talented player but trapped in his own intellectual fat - nothing new would go in his head and at the same time come out in his fingers. Also remember being high on dope makes you feel you are playing glorious stuff until you play sober and then you realize you suck. But I ll give Ronnie the merit of being the player that really listens to the band and specially Keith ...as Taylor played more on the melody side. I think Taylor made Richards play better.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Ross
()
Date: December 5, 2011 19:26
Live in Texas is amazing. Stripped down punked up high energy set, showcasing a great new (at the time) album with attitude, mixed in with just the right hits to fit the vibe. Well mixed and recorded. Great show, I love it!
That said, LIT doesn't hold a candle (IMO) to Brussels. Brussels is the band at its absolute peek, both as musicians and in creativity. Mick Taylor is brilliant, Keith is at the top of his game, and Bill Wyman is sublime in his perfection. Bob Clearmountain arrives at the perfect mix, which all adds up to the best officially released live document of this wonderful band.
These, combined with SG disc 2, are a treasure trove of new/vintage Stones material, all released within a few days, and I just cant get enough of any of it!
Keep those vaults open!
That said, LIT doesn't hold a candle (IMO) to Brussels. Brussels is the band at its absolute peek, both as musicians and in creativity. Mick Taylor is brilliant, Keith is at the top of his game, and Bill Wyman is sublime in his perfection. Bob Clearmountain arrives at the perfect mix, which all adds up to the best officially released live document of this wonderful band.
These, combined with SG disc 2, are a treasure trove of new/vintage Stones material, all released within a few days, and I just cant get enough of any of it!
Keep those vaults open!
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
gwen
()
Date: December 5, 2011 21:28
As much as I love Brussels (with the punkiest Angie I've ever heard), I do get annoyed with Mick Taylor's constant soloing. I had a similar feeling while watching L&G. Don't get me wrong, I agree he has a very strong melodic feel and I truely love some of his leads. But for a whole show...
It's two different bands, and I like the sloppy Stones better I guess - I love the mistakes and the good mood. But then, my first rock show was the Ramones...
It's two different bands, and I like the sloppy Stones better I guess - I love the mistakes and the good mood. But then, my first rock show was the Ramones...
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 5, 2011 21:33
Quote
liddas
Just add smiles and whatever to my earlier post. Seems quite harsh on second read, but that was not my intention.
C
(and same words for my response)
- Doxa
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 5, 2011 22:57
Quote
gwen
As much as I love Brussels (with the punkiest Angie I've ever heard), I do get annoyed with Mick Taylor's constant soloing. I had a similar feeling while watching L&G. Don't get me wrong, I agree he has a very strong melodic feel and I truely love some of his leads. But for a whole show...
It's two different bands, and I like the sloppy Stones better I guess - I love the mistakes and the good mood. But then, my first rock show was the Ramones...
I really have trouble with this line of thinking for two reasons:
1. Keith chose to focus almost exclusively on rhythm in 1972-73. I would even say he perfected his rhythm chops during that period. Someone described his rhythm as "slashing" which I think is a really good description. Just listen to what he does on YCAGWYY and others. It's not like Taylor imposed this idea of playing melodic leads on everything. It's the way the band (really meaning Keith) chose to work out the guitar parts.
2. Wood soloed about as much as Taylor initially. In fact, he was trying to ape Taylor's parts on a number of tunes, expecially 1975-78. So if you have two guys playing roughly the equal amount of solos on the basically the same songs, why give Taylor grief for soloing "too much". Seems to me it's a question of who is the better soloist, or at least which one you prefer.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 22:58 by 71Tele.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 5, 2011 22:58
you can't have trouble with a line of reasoning of why someone likes something...i have trouble with that....
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:01
Quote
StonesTod
you can't have trouble with a line of reasoning of why someone likes something...i have trouble with that....
Yes you can. Reasoning is reasoning. Someone lays out an argument and it either stands up or it doesn't. That's a different matter from someone prefering something, which is of course subjective. I never said anyone shouldn't like what they like. I merely thought the argument ("Taylor's constant soloing" ) was weak. Just like the argument that Ronnie is great musically for the Stones because of his looks or longevity in the band. Poor reasoning. Gwen admits she likes the "sloppy" Stones better, and that part of the post I won't take exception to because it's just preference. The problem with the "sloppy" Stones was that one night they would be brilliant and another they would be awful. Or maybe it isn't a problem at all. If you prefer the sloppy Stones, that is. I witnessed both in 1978.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 23:05 by 71Tele.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:05
Quote
71TeleQuote
StonesTod
you can't have trouble with a line of reasoning of why someone likes something...i have trouble with that....
Yes you can. Reasoning is reasoning. Someone lays out an argument and it either stands up or it doesn't. That's a different matter from someone prefering something, which is of course subjective. I never said anyone shouldn't like what they like. I merely thought the argument was weak. Just like the argument that Ronnie is great musically for the Stones because of his looks or longevity in the band. Poor reasoning.
you disagree with gwen's preference of liking sloppy rock'n'roll...but that's a pretty solid reason....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-05 23:05 by StonesTod.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:06
Quote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTod
you can't have trouble with a line of reasoning of why someone likes something...i have trouble with that....
Yes you can. Reasoning is reasoning. Someone lays out an argument and it either stands up or it doesn't. That's a different matter from someone prefering something, which is of course subjective. I never said anyone shouldn't like what they like. I merely thought the argument was weak. Just like the argument that Ronnie is great musically for the Stones because of his looks or longevity in the band. Poor reasoning.
you disagree with gwen's preference of liking sloppy rock'n'roll...but that's a pretty solid reason....
See my edited post. I tried to clarify a bit...I'm a sloppy poster lately. I prefer my earlier, more structured posts.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:14
Quote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTod
you can't have trouble with a line of reasoning of why someone likes something...i have trouble with that....
Yes you can. Reasoning is reasoning. Someone lays out an argument and it either stands up or it doesn't. That's a different matter from someone prefering something, which is of course subjective. I never said anyone shouldn't like what they like. I merely thought the argument was weak. Just like the argument that Ronnie is great musically for the Stones because of his looks or longevity in the band. Poor reasoning.
you disagree with gwen's preference of liking sloppy rock'n'roll...but that's a pretty solid reason....
See my edited post. I tried to clarify a bit...I'm a sloppy poster lately. I prefer my earlier, more structured posts.
thanks for trying, anyway. you're talking to a guy who thinks chuck leavell's the best part of the act, so whaddya gonna do?
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:16
Quote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTod
you can't have trouble with a line of reasoning of why someone likes something...i have trouble with that....
Yes you can. Reasoning is reasoning. Someone lays out an argument and it either stands up or it doesn't. That's a different matter from someone prefering something, which is of course subjective. I never said anyone shouldn't like what they like. I merely thought the argument was weak. Just like the argument that Ronnie is great musically for the Stones because of his looks or longevity in the band. Poor reasoning.
you disagree with gwen's preference of liking sloppy rock'n'roll...but that's a pretty solid reason....
See my edited post. I tried to clarify a bit...I'm a sloppy poster lately. I prefer my earlier, more structured posts.
thanks for trying, anyway. you're talking to a guy who thinks chuck leavell's the best part of the act, so whaddya gonna do?
Really?
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:22
Quote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTod
you can't have trouble with a line of reasoning of why someone likes something...i have trouble with that....
Yes you can. Reasoning is reasoning. Someone lays out an argument and it either stands up or it doesn't. That's a different matter from someone prefering something, which is of course subjective. I never said anyone shouldn't like what they like. I merely thought the argument was weak. Just like the argument that Ronnie is great musically for the Stones because of his looks or longevity in the band. Poor reasoning.
you disagree with gwen's preference of liking sloppy rock'n'roll...but that's a pretty solid reason....
See my edited post. I tried to clarify a bit...I'm a sloppy poster lately. I prefer my earlier, more structured posts.
thanks for trying, anyway. you're talking to a guy who thinks chuck leavell's the best part of the act, so whaddya gonna do?
Really?
love the chuckster...no chuck, no stones....
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
gwen
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:23
Quote
71Tele
Seems to me it's a question of who is the better soloist, or at least which one you prefer.
It's quite difficult to express, really. For some songs (let's say, straight rockers, chuck-berry style) I like Ron's leads better, for others I will like Mick's better (Sway). At the Stu shows, I really liked both of them - Ronnie was driving Little Queenie and Mick was brilliant on more traditional blues stuff.
I didn't use a clock, but I feel there is more soloing on Brussel's Rambler and L&G's Ramblers, during the breaks and verses especially. Maybe I tire more easily of Mick's soloing, who knows. It's very subjective.
I'm a he-gwen by the way - much to Bill Wyman's dismay.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:23
Quote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTod
you can't have trouble with a line of reasoning of why someone likes something...i have trouble with that....
Yes you can. Reasoning is reasoning. Someone lays out an argument and it either stands up or it doesn't. That's a different matter from someone prefering something, which is of course subjective. I never said anyone shouldn't like what they like. I merely thought the argument was weak. Just like the argument that Ronnie is great musically for the Stones because of his looks or longevity in the band. Poor reasoning.
you disagree with gwen's preference of liking sloppy rock'n'roll...but that's a pretty solid reason....
See my edited post. I tried to clarify a bit...I'm a sloppy poster lately. I prefer my earlier, more structured posts.
thanks for trying, anyway. you're talking to a guy who thinks chuck leavell's the best part of the act, so whaddya gonna do?
Really?
love the chuckster...no chuck, no stones....
Hmm....
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:26
Quote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTod
you can't have trouble with a line of reasoning of why someone likes something...i have trouble with that....
Yes you can. Reasoning is reasoning. Someone lays out an argument and it either stands up or it doesn't. That's a different matter from someone prefering something, which is of course subjective. I never said anyone shouldn't like what they like. I merely thought the argument was weak. Just like the argument that Ronnie is great musically for the Stones because of his looks or longevity in the band. Poor reasoning.
you disagree with gwen's preference of liking sloppy rock'n'roll...but that's a pretty solid reason....
See my edited post. I tried to clarify a bit...I'm a sloppy poster lately. I prefer my earlier, more structured posts.
thanks for trying, anyway. you're talking to a guy who thinks chuck leavell's the best part of the act, so whaddya gonna do?
Really?
love the chuckster...no chuck, no stones....
Hmm....
you have a problem with my line of reasoning?
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
curtisdavis
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:32
I love them both...they both r great for the era they where in..I love the constant comparing of the two on this board...but its funny as hell to to read all the comments.I myself am a player like some of u,so I also get into the guitar sounds.Okay I thought Woody did a great job in 1978 live..but I'm also a sucker for live 1973 recordings..my favorite being the show in Vienna where they played alot of Goats Head Soup..with that being said I gotta say like I'm sure I said before..the greatness of the Stones is their ability to be the Stones for the times via 1973 or 1978..each sound they had fitted those years..just like say 19th Nervous Breakdown fit 1966...I love the all the varied sounds and guitar styles in their whole catalog..I dont bother comparing,,to each his or her own for sure..but if I'm in the mood for Stones I look at everything from the first album to the last..sometimes its Emotional Rescue..or Beggars Banquet..or even Steel Wheels..it really depends on my mood or if im getting ready for work..or getting off or whatever..i love it all....Happy Listening all.
Coming Down Again
Coming Down Again
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:48
Quote
gwenQuote
71Tele
Seems to me it's a question of who is the better soloist, or at least which one you prefer.
It's quite difficult to express, really. For some songs (let's say, straight rockers, chuck-berry style) I like Ron's leads better, for others I will like Mick's better (Sway). At the Stu shows, I really liked both of them - Ronnie was driving Little Queenie and Mick was brilliant on more traditional blues stuff.
I didn't use a clock, but I feel there is more soloing on Brussel's Rambler and L&G's Ramblers, during the breaks and verses especially. Maybe I tire more easily of Mick's soloing, who knows. It's very subjective.
I'm a he-gwen by the way - much to Bill Wyman's dismay.
Sorry, gwen. I knew I should have asked before assuming your gender...I really prefer the 1969 Berry stuff with Richards/Taylor. Taylor is mostly playing rhythm, but adds some very tasty runs.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 5, 2011 23:54
Quote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
StonesTod
you can't have trouble with a line of reasoning of why someone likes something...i have trouble with that....
Yes you can. Reasoning is reasoning. Someone lays out an argument and it either stands up or it doesn't. That's a different matter from someone prefering something, which is of course subjective. I never said anyone shouldn't like what they like. I merely thought the argument was weak. Just like the argument that Ronnie is great musically for the Stones because of his looks or longevity in the band. Poor reasoning.
you disagree with gwen's preference of liking sloppy rock'n'roll...but that's a pretty solid reason....
See my edited post. I tried to clarify a bit...I'm a sloppy poster lately. I prefer my earlier, more structured posts.
thanks for trying, anyway. you're talking to a guy who thinks chuck leavell's the best part of the act, so whaddya gonna do?
Really?
love the chuckster...no chuck, no stones....
Hmm....
you have a problem with my line of reasoning?
No, just your sanity.
Re: Live in Texas better Than Brussels Affair?
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: December 6, 2011 10:23
Quote
StonesTod
i wouldn't call woody's solo improvised...what he does on his leads is play figures or runs and compiles them together in a solo...whereas a guy like MT actually plays a coherent solo...much in the style of jazz soloists...where's there's a story being told...there's a beginning, a middle and an end...
not saying one is superior to the other, but woody (much like keith) doesn't/can't really craft a true solo in the traditional sense....
Yeah, and very often the "story" is scripted, and you know what you'll get the next time. It's like reading your favorite book for the fifth time.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
adrianmfa2 , CaptainCorella , django , EasterMan , Eleanor Rigby , goingmad , Heart for Stones , LiveAtHidepark , rastakeith , spidey39 , switchblade1975 , TW2019
Guests:
1567
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10