Quote
R
I bet Ronnie could have done an admirable job on this solo back in the '70s and eraly '80s but his synapses don't seem to connect readily anymore. A lot of his solos now tend to get stuck when they should be accelerating, making a turn or reaching a destination.

Thoughts pretty much how I feel. It's another reason why his playing on this song frustrates me so much, knowing he probably could have done a MUCH better job (or even merely a good one) in another era.

I am not trying to start a whole Ronnie-bashing thread here, but I honestly don't know that I have heard him be a consistently good soloist since the Voodoo Lounge tour.

Quote
theimposter
I recently came across my boot of the 2003 MSG show and was listening on the way home from work.I am sorry, but I think Ronnie's solo at the end was rather terrible. There wasn't one single phrase or run that I found admirable in the entire rambling, formless solo. And I am not a hardcore Taylorphile, I just honestly have a hard time believing that is the best he can do. And it didn't help that his tone was beyond horrendous - all cheap sounding distortion and ugly delay.

The only time I recall him doing a decent - if very restrained - attempt was the performance at Palais Royale, stayed more or less faithful to the original without attempting it note for note.

You don't have to be a Taylorphile to notice Ron cannot phrase decently.
Frankly, to me Wood is not and never was a Rolling Stone. Too hard an act to follow, he does not have the chops. His early songwriting / playing was ok though.

Quote
VT22

Quote
theimposter
I recently came across my boot of the 2003 MSG show and was listening on the way home from work.I am sorry, but I think Ronnie's solo at the end was rather terrible. There wasn't one single phrase or run that I found admirable in the entire rambling, formless solo. And I am not a hardcore Taylorphile, I just honestly have a hard time believing that is the best he can do. And it didn't help that his tone was beyond horrendous - all cheap sounding distortion and ugly delay.

The only time I recall him doing a decent - if very restrained - attempt was the performance at Palais Royale, stayed more or less faithful to the original without attempting it note for note.

You don't have to be a Taylorphile to notice Ron cannot phrase decently.
Frankly, to me Wood is not and never was a Rolling Stone. Too hard an act to follow, he does not have the chops. His early songwriting / playing was ok though.

Agree completely. Except I would only say that his playing and arranging on the Rod Stewart early solo stuff was the best music he did in his career. He never came close with the Stones because his role was so much different.

IMO Ronnie was having "substance" issues in 2003. He sounded terrible.

In contrast though take a listen to CYHMK from the MSG show on 9/26/02. A very nice solo IMO.

Ronnie's playing was really good during the 2002 Licks shows but was noticeable worse in 2003. I attended those MSG shows in 2002 and 2003 and I did not have to listen to the tapes afterwards to come to my opinion. It was very noticeable during the shows.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
VT22

Quote
theimposter
I recently came across my boot of the 2003 MSG show and was listening on the way home from work.I am sorry, but I think Ronnie's solo at the end was rather terrible. There wasn't one single phrase or run that I found admirable in the entire rambling, formless solo. And I am not a hardcore Taylorphile, I just honestly have a hard time believing that is the best he can do. And it didn't help that his tone was beyond horrendous - all cheap sounding distortion and ugly delay.

The only time I recall him doing a decent - if very restrained - attempt was the performance at Palais Royale, stayed more or less faithful to the original without attempting it note for note.

You don't have to be a Taylorphile to notice Ron cannot phrase decently.
Frankly, to me Wood is not and never was a Rolling Stone. Too hard an act to follow, he does not have the chops. His early songwriting / playing was ok though.

Agree completely. Except I would only say that his playing and arranging on the Rod Stewart early solo stuff was the best music he did in his career. He never came close with the Stones because his role was so much different.

Tele, I think his whole style doesn't go with the RS music. Besides he's an average musician, just like he's an average painter. But he is tremendous in socialising with especially famous people.

Ronnie's songwrting abilities has always been brilliant, I like all of his solo albums except 'Not For Beginners'' from 2003.

Quote
VT22


You don't have to be a Taylorphile to notice Ron cannot phrase decently.
Frankly, to me Wood is not and never was a Rolling Stone. Too hard an act to follow, he does not have the chops. His early songwriting / playing was ok though.

You are so Amsterdamned.

Always posting about Tayalor, likes Jeff Beck, loves his VT22 amp. ><

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

Quote
VT22

Quote
theimposter
I recently came across my boot of the 2003 MSG show and was listening on the way home from work.I am sorry, but I think Ronnie's solo at the end was rather terrible. There wasn't one single phrase or run that I found admirable in the entire rambling, formless solo. And I am not a hardcore Taylorphile, I just honestly have a hard time believing that is the best he can do. And it didn't help that his tone was beyond horrendous - all cheap sounding distortion and ugly delay.

The only time I recall him doing a decent - if very restrained - attempt was the performance at Palais Royale, stayed more or less faithful to the original without attempting it note for note.

You don't have to be a Taylorphile to notice Ron cannot phrase decently.
Frankly, to me Wood is not and never was a Rolling Stone. Too hard an act to follow, he does not have the chops. His early songwriting / playing was ok though.

Agree completely. Except I would only say that his playing and arranging on the Rod Stewart early solo stuff was the best music he did in his career. He never came close with the Stones because his role was so much different.

Tele, I think his whole style doesn't go with the RS music. Besides he's an average musician, just like he's an average painter. But he is tremendous in socialising with especially famous people.

They picked someone who (from his work with The Faces) would have been a great fit with their early 70s style... Unfortunately they picked him just as they changed (lost?) direction.

Kind of off-topic slightly, but it is known that Keith and Ronnie were already hanging out and becoming buddies before Taylor even quit. Were all the guitarist auditions because Jagger wanted to be absolutely sure they found the right guy? Keith may have thought Ronnie was the man before they started the Black & Blue sessions, but maybe Mick wasn't sure. Just admitted speculation on my part based on what is known publicly.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

Quote
VT22

Quote
theimposter
I recently came across my boot of the 2003 MSG show and was listening on the way home from work.I am sorry, but I think Ronnie's solo at the end was rather terrible. There wasn't one single phrase or run that I found admirable in the entire rambling, formless solo. And I am not a hardcore Taylorphile, I just honestly have a hard time believing that is the best he can do. And it didn't help that his tone was beyond horrendous - all cheap sounding distortion and ugly delay.

The only time I recall him doing a decent - if very restrained - attempt was the performance at Palais Royale, stayed more or less faithful to the original without attempting it note for note.

You don't have to be a Taylorphile to notice Ron cannot phrase decently.
Frankly, to me Wood is not and never was a Rolling Stone. Too hard an act to follow, he does not have the chops. His early songwriting / playing was ok though.

Agree completely. Except I would only say that his playing and arranging on the Rod Stewart early solo stuff was the best music he did in his career. He never came close with the Stones because his role was so much different.

Tele, I think his whole style doesn't go with the RS music. Besides he's an average musician, just like he's an average painter. But he is tremendous in socialising with especially famous people.

I think he was a very good musician who was just not in the same league as the Stones, unfortunately. At least with Faces and Rod he shared the musical leadership, and I think the results were quite good. "Maggie May", for example, is a fantastic record. As the Stones already had an "executive committee" his services in that regard were not required, and he was relegated to a lesser role, which I think eventually had a negative impact on him personally as well as musically. But lots of people here love the guy and everything he does, so there you go.

I feel sorry for Ron having to stand in the shadows of MT on songs like this. He's a different style of guitarist and nothing he does will be the same as if MT did it. This was almost a MT signature song. Sway's the same. On the other hand, I couldn't imagine MT playing much of Some Girls.

So we know that Ronnie plays differently to Mick and that some people prefer one or other, and some people like both. We'll never get much further than that.

Quote
sjs12
I feel sorry for Ron having to stand in the shadows of MT on songs like this. He's a different style of guitarist and nothing he does will be the same as if MT did it. This was almost a MT signature song. Sway's the same. On the other hand, I couldn't imagine MT playing much of Some Girls.

So we know that Ronnie plays differently to Mick and that some people prefer one or other, and some people like both. We'll never get much further than that.

True, and true. Some Girls was a great way to integrate Ronnie into the band. They created a new sound around the new line-up, which was very exciting at the time. For example, using pedal steel on thrashy rock songs, was brilliant, in my opinion. Unfortunately, they rarely matched that level of quality again, and in many of the live shows he was a mess on guitar. Sometimes a glorious mess, but often just a mess. I suspect Ronnie's engaging personality and likability allows many people to overlook musical difficiencies.

imo keith's weak intro and the cheesy back-up singers (with crystal-clear enunciation)killed live chymk far more than anything woody did. he may not have been up to taylor's standards, but the song wasnt half-bad once it got to the jam part.

Quote
Slick
imo keith's weak intro and the cheesy back-up singers (with crystal-clear enunciation)killed live chymk far more than anything woody did. he may not have been up to taylor's standards, but the song wasnt half-bad once it got to the jam part.

Yeah, I was very disappointed that Keith couldn't nail the part he played so well on the record. It's one of the most distinctive and identifiable guitar intros in the history of popular music and an essential part of the song.

Ronnie was great in 1978. Taylor wouldn't have fit in that kind of music.
It's a matter of style.
Would just as well love to see Stones as in 1978 - "Some Girls, live in Texas 1978". Lots of energy and wildness.
Would also like to see them as they were in 1973 - Europe Tour - here Taylor is better.

Quote
71Tele
Kind of off-topic slightly, but it is known that Keith and Ronnie were already hanging out and becoming buddies before Taylor even quit. Were all the guitarist auditions because Jagger wanted to be absolutely sure they found the right guy? Keith may have thought Ronnie was the man before they started the Black & Blue sessions, but maybe Mick wasn't sure. Just admitted speculation on my part based on what is known publicly.

Keith and Ronnie may have been hanging out but it seems that Wood was Jagger's choice and Keith was less favorably disposed towards Wood becoming a band member

Check out the line below (borrowed from SwayStones' post from a while back of an Ian Stewart interview)

[www.iorr.org]


"Keith was really not sure about Woody, because he felt that Woody played too much like him, and that it wouldn't sound good. But Mick and I wanted Woody. The other guys were rather undecided."

Quote
wanderingspirit66

Quote
71Tele
Kind of off-topic slightly, but it is known that Keith and Ronnie were already hanging out and becoming buddies before Taylor even quit. Were all the guitarist auditions because Jagger wanted to be absolutely sure they found the right guy? Keith may have thought Ronnie was the man before they started the Black & Blue sessions, but maybe Mick wasn't sure. Just admitted speculation on my part based on what is known publicly.

Keith and Ronnie may have been hanging out but it seems that Wood was Jagger's choice and Keith was less favorably disposed towards Wood becoming a band member

Check out the line below (borrowed from SwayStones' post from a while back of an Ian Stewart interview)

[www.iorr.org]


"Keith was really not sure about Woody, because he felt that Woody played too much like him, and that it wouldn't sound good. But Mick and I wanted Woody. The other guys were rather undecided."

Ah, that's right...In this instance Keith was right, imo...

absolutely brutal

Quote
sjs12
I feel sorry for Ron having to stand in the shadows of MT on songs like this. He's a different style of guitarist and nothing he does will be the same as if MT did it. This was almost a MT signature song. Sway's the same. On the other hand, I couldn't imagine MT playing much of Some Girls.

So we know that Ronnie plays differently to Mick and that some people prefer one or other, and some people like both. We'll never get much further than that.

Guitarists have different styles.

Taylor doesn´t sound good on the Some Girls-numbers on the Kansas-gig from 1981.

Ronnie doesn´t sound good on many of the Taylor-numbers, especially the ones that have lots of lead guitar and lesser song writing substance.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Slick
imo keith's weak intro and the cheesy back-up singers (with crystal-clear enunciation)killed live chymk far more than anything woody did. he may not have been up to taylor's standards, but the song wasnt half-bad once it got to the jam part.

Yeah, I was very disappointed that Keith couldn't nail the part he played so well on the record. It's one of the most distinctive and identifiable guitar intros in the history of popular music and an essential part of the song.

I´m quite sure he used a capo on the studio recording, hence he could the pulling part of the riff, which he never does live. I agree, it gets too one-dimensional, and there is something with Keith´s live sound as well that just isn´t right for this tune, imo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I´m quite sure he used a capo on the studio recording, hence he could the pulling part of the riff, which he never does live. I agree, it gets too one-dimensional, and there is something with Keith´s live sound as well that just isn´t right for this tune, imo.

No capo sir!

Usual thing of in the studio etc he had all the the time in the world to try attempts at it where as live he had to get it right there and then.

Also, I think, to us the opening amazing riff etc is some what set in stone, it's almost as if it's writtren just so... for him it's probably one captured variation of the many ways he played it during recording sessions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-06 23:20 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I´m quite sure he used a capo on the studio recording, hence he could the pulling part of the riff, which he never does live. I agree, it gets too one-dimensional, and there is something with Keith´s live sound as well that just isn´t right for this tune, imo.

No capo sir!

Usual thing of in the studio etc he just had the the time to try 50 million attempts at it where as live he had to get it right there and then.

You may be right, of course, but the pulling in the intro riff (after the 3rd or 4th time or so) + the licks after each verse line would be easier (and more typical Keith) to do with a capo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I´m quite sure he used a capo on the studio recording, hence he could the pulling part of the riff, which he never does live. I agree, it gets too one-dimensional, and there is something with Keith´s live sound as well that just isn´t right for this tune, imo.

No capo sir!

Usual thing of in the studio etc he just had the the time to try 50 million attempts at it where as live he had to get it right there and then.

You may be right, of course, but the pulling in the intro riff (after the 3rd or 4th time or so) + the licks after each verse line would be easier (and more typical Keith) to do with a capo.

Nah, there's no capo. For one thing it totally screws up the playing of the rest of the song.

Usual thing of he/they just had more time and captured the magic from hours and hours of playing.

Live Keith has always been more rough 'n' ready with a bit of winging it thrown in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-06 23:28 by His Majesty.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
sjs12
I feel sorry for Ron having to stand in the shadows of MT on songs like this. He's a different style of guitarist and nothing he does will be the same as if MT did it. This was almost a MT signature song. Sway's the same. On the other hand, I couldn't imagine MT playing much of Some Girls.

So we know that Ronnie plays differently to Mick and that some people prefer one or other, and some people like both. We'll never get much further than that.

Guitarists have different styles.

Taylor doesn´t sound good on the Some Girls-numbers on the Kansas-gig from 1981.

Ronnie doesn´t sound good on many of the Taylor-numbers, especially the ones that have lots of lead guitar and lesser song writing substance.

How can you compare a one off performance with hardly if any rehearsal to years and years playing the same stuff? Besides Taylor is hardly audible on especially the SG-songs. But what's audible sounds really good (BOB and BL if I remember well).

Taylor can play anything, Wood can't, that's the main difference.

Quote
sjs12
Taylor can play anything, Wood can't, that's the main difference.

Mick Taylor can NOT play anything. He is a very limited guitarist. Just the fact that he choose playing with a Les Paul makes it impossible for his sound to fit with, for example Some Girls songs.

Quote
TheBlockbuster

Quote
sjs12
Taylor can play anything, Wood can't, that's the main difference.

Mick Taylor can NOT play anything. He is a very limited guitarist. Just the fact that he choose playing with a Les Paul makes it impossible for his sound to fit with, for example Some Girls songs.

Simply nonsense.

Mick Taylor can NOT play anything. He is a very limited guitarist.

The best limited player.................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for mentioned this

__________________________

Quote
NICOS
Mick Taylor can NOT play anything. He is a very limited guitarist.

The best limited player.................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for mentioned this

Well just like Taylor Wood is also a limited player. If he wasn't he would be able to play just like Taylor, and Taylor just like him. What Im saying is that Taylor's thick sound and clean 'blues sound' just dosen't fit with the later era Stones. That he of course is a very good guitarist and even better Ronnie is something else.

I agree that Taylor has limits - EVERYONE does. Ronnie, however, is very limited, maybe from the booze, maybe just lost all fluidity. I have kind of cringed overthe years whenever I see Ronnie on TV or hear him playing with other 'guitar greats'. It is his turn to play and it all comes apart.

Ronnie's style worked with The Faces. I have never felt he added to the Stones - especially live. In the studio with overdubs, 32 takes and re-do's, maybe it works. In the spotlight, live...other than clowning, I see now value in his playing.

I will amend that: I did like his playing on Back Of My Hand live. But then again, it was good, not amazing. Taylor, live, has amazed me. I think he still could, with the Stones.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Slick
imo keith's weak intro and the cheesy back-up singers (with crystal-clear enunciation)killed live chymk far more than anything woody did. he may not have been up to taylor's standards, but the song wasnt half-bad once it got to the jam part.

Yeah, I was very disappointed that Keith couldn't nail the part he played so well on the record. It's one of the most distinctive and identifiable guitar intros in the history of popular music and an essential part of the song.

I´m quite sure he used a capo on the studio recording, hence he could the pulling part of the riff, which he never does live. I agree, it gets too one-dimensional, and there is something with Keith´s live sound as well that just isn´t right for this tune, imo.

You don't need a capo to play this. I never use one on this song. I don't think a capo would help much. It would have to be too high up the neck, and you end up cutting off too much needed fretboard, especially the big "G" chords during the chorus. He just didn't play it fluidly or with an aggressive-enough distortion to capture the essence of the part he did originally.