Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
CousinC
Producer Glyn Johns said it all in Kent's Dark Stuff: Wood in the early years had a great style of his own. But musically he was the wrong choice for the Stones, didn't add much to them and degenerated to some kind of court jester.He didn't get the job for his playing.

He must make a mean hot buttered rum if that's why they hired him...

i always just assumed they hired him so that the faces would break up; it was either that or get jimmy page and breakup zep...cos they were the rage or something...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this turning into a Taylor vs. Wood-thread again? Wood didn't play on Ya Yas...

However, since you guys insist. This is Ronnie Wood in 1989.

The funky guitar solo here is trademark Ronnie. Name one other guitar player that plays like this. It's BS that he hasn't his own signature sound or style.

That short solo Ron is playing here is decent.
I could name several players that could play like this though -any professional session player actually.

Hiring Ronnie was in effect just taking the path of least resistance.

It was more of an image and personality thing than anything...but at the time was very popular with the majority of [still young!] fans.

I was about 15 and as soon as news of MT's departure hit the press my mates and I were "...get Ron Wood...It's got to be Ron Wood !"

Looking back now... I can't think of anybody else who might still have been in the band today !

They'd have probably completed the last 35 years with a whole series of "hired guns".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-08 18:57 by Spud.

Quote
Spud
Hiring Ronnie was in effect just taking the path of least resistance.

It was more of an image and personality thing than anything...but at the time was very popular with the majority of [still young!] fans.


Looking back now... I can't think of anybody else who might still have been in the band today !

They'd have probably completed the last 35 years with a whole series of "hired guns".

That would probably have been the best solution.

Quote
VT22

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this turning into a Taylor vs. Wood-thread again? Wood didn't play on Ya Yas...

However, since you guys insist. This is Ronnie Wood in 1989.

The funky guitar solo here is trademark Ronnie. Name one other guitar player that plays like this. It's BS that he hasn't his own signature sound or style.

That short solo Ron is playing here is decent.
I could name several players that could play like this though -any professional session player actually.

They would never limit themselves to this percussive solo, they would without exceptions try to sneak in more notes, hence making this kind of a solo less effective, imo.

The small, funky, biting licks played this way is Ronnie´s playing style. I haven´t heard many players with that style.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
kleermaker

It's live so it doesn't need to be perfect.

Err, right. What a dumb remark.

Mathijs

By quoting in such a way it's easy to make seem every remark "dumb". But it's your post that actually implies that a live version has to be perfect.

This version with Taylor "terrible out of tune in the first half of the track" as you state I highly prefer to the YY's version.

What a load of crap. I bet you never even noticed Taylor being out of tune before I told you so.

Mathijs

In '69 it was usually Keith who was out of tune, especially when he played that Dan Armstrong, which seemed impossible to tune. But yeah, sometimes Taylor was out of tune. So what.

Nothing wrong - that happens, but who wants a live recording with an out of tune-guitar? I think that's what Mathijs is talking about in this case.

Exactly, that was my point. No doubt it is a hell of a version, but Taylor is so out of tune on the first half that releasing it on a live album would only be possible if they re-did his part completely. Btw, as far as I remember there's only a very few occasions where Taylor is out of tune, SFM from Brussels 2nd comes to mind. Here he probably just bumped into someone just before they hit the stage. That happens to any guitarist once in a while playing on a stage.

Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this turning into a Taylor vs. Wood-thread again? Wood didn't play on Ya Yas...

However, since you guys insist. This is Ronnie Wood in 1989.

The funky guitar solo here is trademark Ronnie. Name one other guitar player that plays like this. It's BS that he hasn't his own signature sound or style.

That short solo Ron is playing here is decent.
I could name several players that could play like this though -any professional session player actually.

The same is true for Taylor -I can name a dozen big gun blues guitarists from the late 60's whom would have done a same job as Taylor, and whom we would have revered to this day. Instead of a Taylor/Wood debate we would have had a Perkins/Wood debate.

Btw, when Wood was chosen we musn't forget that the days of the screaming lead guitarists where quite over, especially for blues rock bands. I think Jagger was well aware of that, plus the fact that Jagger was well aware he needed a third writing partner as Richards' output was diminishing since '73.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this turning into a Taylor vs. Wood-thread again? Wood didn't play on Ya Yas...

However, since you guys insist. This is Ronnie Wood in 1989.

The funky guitar solo here is trademark Ronnie. Name one other guitar player that plays like this. It's BS that he hasn't his own signature sound or style.

That short solo Ron is playing here is decent.
I could name several players that could play like this though -any professional session player actually.

The same is true for Taylor -I can name a dozen big gun blues guitarists from the late 60's whom would have done a same job as Taylor, and whom we would have revered to this day. Instead of a Taylor/Wood debate we would have had a Perkins/Wood debate.

Btw, when Wood was chosen we musn't forget that the days of the screaming lead guitarists where quite over, especially for blues rock bands. I think Jagger was well aware of that, plus the fact that Jagger was well aware he needed a third writing partner as Richards' output was diminishing since '73.

Mathijs

For the millionth time, Mathijs, the preference for Taylor is not just about lead guitar. It's about musicianship, style, and taste.

Quote
71Tele


For the millionth time, Mathijs, the preference for Taylor is not just about lead guitar. It's about musicianship, style, and taste.

Yeah, he's like rich chocolate, too much and it makes you feel a bit sick.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this turning into a Taylor vs. Wood-thread again? Wood didn't play on Ya Yas...

However, since you guys insist. This is Ronnie Wood in 1989.

The funky guitar solo here is trademark Ronnie. Name one other guitar player that plays like this. It's BS that he hasn't his own signature sound or style.

That short solo Ron is playing here is decent.
I could name several players that could play like this though -any professional session player actually.

The same is true for Taylor -I can name a dozen big gun blues guitarists from the late 60's whom would have done a same job as Taylor, and whom we would have revered to this day. Instead of a Taylor/Wood debate we would have had a Perkins/Wood debate.

Btw, when Wood was chosen we musn't forget that the days of the screaming lead guitarists where quite over, especially for blues rock bands. I think Jagger was well aware of that, plus the fact that Jagger was well aware he needed a third writing partner as Richards' output was diminishing since '73.

Mathijs

For the millionth time, Mathijs, the preference for Taylor is not just about lead guitar. It's about musicianship, style, and taste.

Er, that's what I said -I can name a dozen excellent blues guitarists who'd would have done a simular job with the Stones, all as highly talented in musicianship, style, and taste as Taylor. I can even name a few who'd would have added more than just (brilliant) lead and slide guitar: great rhythm guitar for example.

Take 'Hand of Fate' for example: great, great solo, and the rhythm part of Perkins is better than about any rhythm part Taylor has done with the Stones.

Mathijs

Quote
flacnvinyl
Back on topic... Here is the complete Ya Ya's raw acetate for those of you who haven't heard it. MP3 form so that my server doesn't get hammered like crazy...

Hatfieldmedia.com/yayas_acetate.zip - 128MB zip file

Veering again back on topic...here's some info, from the same site referenced previously, on "Revelations from the Apple Acetate" which sheds more light on the (relative lack of) instrumental overdubs on the official Ya Ya's. One important point to remember: acetate does NOT equal raw/live recording. This was an early pressing that contains vocal overdubs as well. It's just another point of reference in piecing together the overall puzzle.

Revelations on the Apple Acetate

Quote
Mathijs
Btw, I just checked the audience version of JJF, 11/27: I do not hear any difference in the guitar part. For whatever reason, Taylor indeed not take a solo on the 27th, like he did on many other nights.

Mathijs

Veering again back on topic...

Yep, no instrumental overdubs on JJF on the official release, when compared to the audience recording as a reference.

And does it "matter" whether Ya Ya's has overdubs? No, not really. But I think there have been so many casual assumptions and comments made over the years about the extent of the overdubs on this album that people tend to dismiss it instrumentally, when it's the vocals that had the more thorough going over. What Ya-Ya's documents quite accurately was the state of their instrumental playing live on this tour. I suppose that's why I bother with this at all. I guess just to be careful about assumptions (many of which are only partially correct) that get passed along as gospel and slightly embroidered on each repeated telling. Instrumentally, this album is very close to raw/live/as they played it.

Aside from the JJF on GYYYO that is not the one in Gimme Shelter with the fantastic guitaring, which I think is better, a good question to ask Mick Jagger is "Why did you overdub the vocal on JJF with the studio-styled chorus of 'It's alllllll-riiiiiiiiight' instead of just leaving it as you did live, which is ten times better?"

At least on Love You Live he left the chorus(es) of HTW the way he sang it live, which is way better than the studio version, just like with JJF in 1969/70.

The same is true for Taylor -I can name a dozen big gun blues guitarists from the late 60's whom would have done a same job as Taylor, and whom we would have revered to this day.Instead of a Taylor/Wood debate we would have had a Perkins/Wood debate. ->Mathijs

No thanks.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
VT22

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why is this turning into a Taylor vs. Wood-thread again? Wood didn't play on Ya Yas...

However, since you guys insist. This is Ronnie Wood in 1989.

The funky guitar solo here is trademark Ronnie. Name one other guitar player that plays like this. It's BS that he hasn't his own signature sound or style.

That short solo Ron is playing here is decent.
I could name several players that could play like this though -any professional session player actually.

The same is true for Taylor -I can name a dozen big gun blues guitarists from the late 60's whom would have done a same job as Taylor, and whom we would have revered to this day. Instead of a Taylor/Wood debate we would have had a Perkins/Wood debate.

Btw, when Wood was chosen we musn't forget that the days of the screaming lead guitarists where quite over, especially for blues rock bands. I think Jagger was well aware of that, plus the fact that Jagger was well aware he needed a third writing partner as Richards' output was diminishing since '73.

Mathijs

For the millionth time, Mathijs, the preference for Taylor is not just about lead guitar. It's about musicianship, style, and taste.

Er, that's what I said -I can name a dozen excellent blues guitarists who'd would have done a simular job with the Stones, all as highly talented in musicianship, style, and taste as Taylor. I can even name a few who'd would have added more than just (brilliant) lead and slide guitar: great rhythm guitar for example.

Take 'Hand of Fate' for example: great, great solo, and the rhythm part of Perkins is better than about any rhythm part Taylor has done with the Stones.

Mathijs

Although I will never persuade you, I have to state for the record that I think your premise is utterly, completely wrong. Taylor added something special. I will turn your statement around on you and say that after 1978, absolutely any guitarist would have worked as well (or better) in the band as Ron Wood, as the job's only requirement seemed to be clowning around onstage with Richards, as well as being his drink & drug buddy. I will admit that Taylor was not nearly as good at that as Ronnie.

Quote
VT22
The same is true for Taylor -I can name a dozen big gun blues guitarists from the late 60's whom would have done a same job as Taylor, and whom we would have revered to this day.Instead of a Taylor/Wood debate we would have had a Perkins/Wood debate. ->Mathijs

No thanks.

how about a ricky fenson/dick taylor debate----that one could go on for WEEKS!!

Quote
71Tele
Although I will never persuade you, I have to state for the record that I think your premise is utterly, completely wrong. Taylor added something special. I will turn your statement around on you and say that after 1978, absolutely any guitarist would have worked as well (or better) in the band as Ron Wood, as the job's only requirement seemed to be clowning around onstage with Richards, as well as being his drink & drug buddy. I will admit that Taylor was not nearly as good at that as Ronnie.

I understand where you are coming from with that but I don't agree. Ronnie did bring something to the band musically. It was different than the Taylor version and that's the big problem, what he's compared to. I don't think Ronnie's playing should be so dismissed. I know he's been a douche behaviour wise and a lush/drunk/clown for most of his time on stage and has played awful a good bit.

So has Keith. Not to that degree or status, of course, but he has. So OK so what.

Ronnie has done some great playing on stage and on record. He's got wonderful playing on Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Undercover (really, I don't know what all he did on Tattoo You - does anyone? - other than Hang Fire, Neighbours and No Use In Crying). After that it seems Keith had some ego issues and still does.

Ronnnie has done great playing on every tour. And of course his pedal steel playing has been stellar.

I really think Ronnie gets shit on big time here beyond what is realistic. The poor skinny dude has put up with A LOT of shit from Mick and Keith. I think he deserves better, as well as some respect.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
71Tele
Although I will never persuade you, I have to state for the record that I think your premise is utterly, completely wrong. Taylor added something special. I will turn your statement around on you and say that after 1978, absolutely any guitarist would have worked as well (or better) in the band as Ron Wood, as the job's only requirement seemed to be clowning around onstage with Richards, as well as being his drink & drug buddy. I will admit that Taylor was not nearly as good at that as Ronnie.

I understand where you are coming from with that but I don't agree. Ronnie did bring something to the band musically. It was different than the Taylor version and that's the big problem, what he's compared to. I don't think Ronnie's playing should be so dismissed. I know he's been a douche behaviour wise and a lush/drunk/clown for most of his time on stage and has played awful a good bit.

So has Keith. Not to that degree or status, of course, but he has. So OK so what.

Ronnie has done some great playing on stage and on record. He's got wonderful playing on Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Undercover (really, I don't know what all he did on Tattoo You - does anyone? - other than Hang Fire, Neighbours and No Use In Crying). After that it seems Keith had some ego issues and still does.

Ronnnie has done great playing on every tour. And of course his pedal steel playing has been stellar.

I really think Ronnie gets shit on big time here beyond what is realistic. The poor skinny dude has put up with A LOT of shit from Mick and Keith. I think he deserves better, as well as some respect.

I agree about Some Girls and the pedal steel. But he has definitely NOT done great playing on "every tour". On several tours he was barely conscious. In 1981 he was effectively on probation. Contrary to his getting too much shit here, he has a huge cheering section of people who seem to like him whether he plays well or not. He gets a pass on a lot of mediocre to awful playing. He certainly did bring something different - and very good - to Some Girls and bits of the next couple of records. After that, not so much, but the overall material wasn't as good either, to be fair. But basically, Ron Wood won the lottery and has spent much of the last 30 years coasting.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Aside from the JJF on GYYYO that is not the one in Gimme Shelter with the fantastic guitaring, which I think is better, a good question to ask Mick Jagger is "Why did you overdub the vocal on JJF with the studio-styled chorus of 'It's alllllll-riiiiiiiiight' instead of just leaving it as you did live, which is ten times better?"

At least on Love You Live he left the chorus(es) of HTW the way he sang it live, which is way better than the studio version, just like with JJF in 1969/70.

NOTHING about the LYL version of HTW is better than the studio version.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs
I can name a dozen excellent blues guitarists who'd would have done a simular job with the Stones, all as highly talented in musicianship, style, and taste as Taylor. I can even name a few who'd would have added more than just (brilliant) lead and slide guitar: great rhythm guitar for example.

Take 'Hand of Fate' for example: great, great solo, and the rhythm part of Perkins is better than about any rhythm part Taylor has done with the Stones.

Mathijs

Although I will never persuade you, I have to state for the record that I think your premise is utterly, completely wrong. Taylor added something special. I will turn your statement around on you and say that after 1978, absolutely any guitarist would have worked as well (or better) in the band as Ron Wood, as the job's only requirement seemed to be clowning around onstage with Richards, as well as being his drink & drug buddy. I will admit that Taylor was not nearly as good at that as Ronnie.

I agree with 71Tele. Sure, there are plenty of guitarists who are in the exact same ballpark as Taylor in terms of style, feel, technical abilities, musical preferences, etc. But I've been listening to loads of vintage rock 'n' roll and blues for 20 years, also playing guitar with a Stones influence myself, and I won't hesitate for a second to say that Mick Taylor has a level of uniqueness which Ronnie doesn't achieve. Taylor wasn't quite as recognizable as Blackmore and Hendrix, but definitely on the same level as Jimmy Page and without a doubt more special than Ronnie. And I love a lot of Ronnie's playing too, perhaps mostly with the Faces. Of course, if the Stones had settled for another player rather than Mick T, we would rant about that guy being unique instead. But again, I'd say, again, that Ronnie is more replacable (in musical terms) than Mick T.

Quote
71Tele
In '69 it was usually Keith who was out of tune, especially when he played that Dan Armstrong, which seemed impossible to tune. But yeah, sometimes Taylor was out of tune. So what.

Quick question: What songs was the Dan Armstrong only used for on the 69 tour? Satisfaction I know. Any others?

-R

Quote
Mathijs
Btw, I just checked the audience version of JJF, 11/27: I do not hear any difference in the guitar part. For whatever reason, Taylor indeed not take a solo on the 27th, like he did on many other nights.

Mathijs

I've noticed that he had a habit of not playing at random times. For a few seconds here and there he would just drop out. Maybe he was messing with his guitar or something.

Quote
LieB

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs
I can name a dozen excellent blues guitarists who'd would have done a simular job with the Stones, all as highly talented in musicianship, style, and taste as Taylor. I can even name a few who'd would have added more than just (brilliant) lead and slide guitar: great rhythm guitar for example.

Take 'Hand of Fate' for example: great, great solo, and the rhythm part of Perkins is better than about any rhythm part Taylor has done with the Stones.

Mathijs

Although I will never persuade you, I have to state for the record that I think your premise is utterly, completely wrong. Taylor added something special. I will turn your statement around on you and say that after 1978, absolutely any guitarist would have worked as well (or better) in the band as Ron Wood, as the job's only requirement seemed to be clowning around onstage with Richards, as well as being his drink & drug buddy. I will admit that Taylor was not nearly as good at that as Ronnie.

I agree with 71Tele. Sure, there are plenty of guitarists who are in the exact same ballpark as Taylor in terms of style, feel, technical abilities, musical preferences, etc. But I've been listening to loads of vintage rock 'n' roll and blues for 20 years, also playing guitar with a Stones influence myself, and I won't hesitate for a second to say that Mick Taylor has a level of uniqueness which Ronnie doesn't achieve. Taylor wasn't quite as recognizable as Blackmore and Hendrix, but definitely on the same level as Jimmy Page and without a doubt more special than Ronnie. And I love a lot of Ronnie's playing too, perhaps mostly with the Faces. Of course, if the Stones had settled for another player rather than Mick T, we would rant about that guy being unique instead. But again, I'd say, again, that Ronnie is more replacable (in musical terms) than Mick T.

hear hear to that

Quote
71Tele

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Aside from the JJF on GYYYO that is not the one in Gimme Shelter with the fantastic guitaring, which I think is better, a good question to ask Mick Jagger is "Why did you overdub the vocal on JJF with the studio-styled chorus of 'It's alllllll-riiiiiiiiight' instead of just leaving it as you did live, which is ten times better?"

At least on Love You Live he left the chorus(es) of HTW the way he sang it live, which is way better than the studio version, just like with JJF in 1969/70.

NOTHING about the LYL version of HTW is better than the studio version.

HA! The LYL version is a million times better than the studio version!

Quote
71Tele

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
71Tele
Although I will never persuade you, I have to state for the record that I think your premise is utterly, completely wrong. Taylor added something special. I will turn your statement around on you and say that after 1978, absolutely any guitarist would have worked as well (or better) in the band as Ron Wood, as the job's only requirement seemed to be clowning around onstage with Richards, as well as being his drink & drug buddy. I will admit that Taylor was not nearly as good at that as Ronnie.

I understand where you are coming from with that but I don't agree. Ronnie did bring something to the band musically. It was different than the Taylor version and that's the big problem, what he's compared to. I don't think Ronnie's playing should be so dismissed. I know he's been a douche behaviour wise and a lush/drunk/clown for most of his time on stage and has played awful a good bit.

So has Keith. Not to that degree or status, of course, but he has. So OK so what.

Ronnie has done some great playing on stage and on record. He's got wonderful playing on Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Undercover (really, I don't know what all he did on Tattoo You - does anyone? - other than Hang Fire, Neighbours and No Use In Crying). After that it seems Keith had some ego issues and still does.

Ronnnie has done great playing on every tour. And of course his pedal steel playing has been stellar.

I really think Ronnie gets shit on big time here beyond what is realistic. The poor skinny dude has put up with A LOT of shit from Mick and Keith. I think he deserves better, as well as some respect.

I agree about Some Girls and the pedal steel. But he has definitely NOT done great playing on "every tour". On several tours he was barely conscious. In 1981 he was effectively on probation. Contrary to his getting too much shit here, he has a huge cheering section of people who seem to like him whether he plays well or not. He gets a pass on a lot of mediocre to awful playing. He certainly did bring something different - and very good - to Some Girls and bits of the next couple of records. After that, not so much, but the overall material wasn't as good either, to be fair. But basically, Ron Wood won the lottery and has spent much of the last 30 years coasting.

Hmmm. Well. You're probably right. He's never had a spine with the Stones except for, what, 1975 up to 1980? It is a real head shaker. He's so talented it's almost disgusting. Yet, like Charlie says, he has the attention span of a gnat. I like Ronnie. He sure can strangle his guitar sometimes.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
71Tele
Although I will never persuade you, I have to state for the record that I think your premise is utterly, completely wrong. Taylor added something special. I will turn your statement around on you and say that after 1978, absolutely any guitarist would have worked as well (or better) in the band as Ron Wood, as the job's only requirement seemed to be clowning around onstage with Richards, as well as being his drink & drug buddy. I will admit that Taylor was not nearly as good at that as Ronnie.

I understand where you are coming from with that but I don't agree. Ronnie did bring something to the band musically. It was different than the Taylor version and that's the big problem, what he's compared to. I don't think Ronnie's playing should be so dismissed. I know he's been a douche behaviour wise and a lush/drunk/clown for most of his time on stage and has played awful a good bit.

So has Keith. Not to that degree or status, of course, but he has. So OK so what.

Ronnie has done some great playing on stage and on record. He's got wonderful playing on Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Undercover (really, I don't know what all he did on Tattoo You - does anyone? - other than Hang Fire, Neighbours and No Use In Crying). After that it seems Keith had some ego issues and still does.

Ronnnie has done great playing on every tour. And of course his pedal steel playing has been stellar.

I really think Ronnie gets shit on big time here beyond what is realistic. The poor skinny dude has put up with A LOT of shit from Mick and Keith. I think he deserves better, as well as some respect.

I agree about Some Girls and the pedal steel. But he has definitely NOT done great playing on "every tour". On several tours he was barely conscious. In 1981 he was effectively on probation. Contrary to his getting too much shit here, he has a huge cheering section of people who seem to like him whether he plays well or not. He gets a pass on a lot of mediocre to awful playing. He certainly did bring something different - and very good - to Some Girls and bits of the next couple of records. After that, not so much, but the overall material wasn't as good either, to be fair. But basically, Ron Wood won the lottery and has spent much of the last 30 years coasting.

I think a part of the problem here is that many of the IORR-posters weren't here in the mid/late 90s when EVERYBODY was bashing Ronnie - because he really wasn't playing well at that time.

When he pulled himself together, people still continued bashing him.

I think you're confusing this with cheering on Ronnie no matter how bad he plays.

If you'd go through posts from 1997/98 you will see that I was one of Ronnie's hardest critics.

Bashing Ronnie now in 2012, when his playing is back on par is meaningless, imo.

He had two bad tours (1994-95 and 1997-98-99), one uneven tour (2002-03) and was back in good shape on the BB-tour.

Quote
Reagan

Quote
71Tele
In '69 it was usually Keith who was out of tune, especially when he played that Dan Armstrong, which seemed impossible to tune. But yeah, sometimes Taylor was out of tune. So what.

Quick question: What songs was the Dan Armstrong only used for on the 69 tour? Satisfaction I know. Any others?

-R

Basically all standard tuning songs. But, it would go out of tune fast, and Keith would use the ES-355 and (early on) the ES-330 as spare.

Mathijs

Quote
71Tele
Although I will never persuade you, I have to state for the record that I think your premise is utterly, completely wrong. Taylor added something special. I will turn your statement around on you and say that after 1978, absolutely any guitarist would have worked as well (or better) in the band as Ron Wood, as the job's only requirement seemed to be clowning around onstage with Richards, as well as being his drink & drug buddy. I will admit that Taylor was not nearly as good at that as Ronnie.

We agree -Taylor absolutely added something very, very special. I only say that I think that any brilliant guitarist of the same level of Taylor (and there where at least a half a dozen back then) would have been able to add something very special. It was the Stones that where special, it was the songs written by Jagger and Richards, backed by Watts and Wyman, that makes the Stones what they where. Taylor is just icing on the cake. An excellent icing, that is.

Anyway, you are right about Wood -of course there would have been more guitarists that could have been hired instead of Wood. I think for 75 - 82 it worked out fine. Wood's never been a blues guitarist, and the Stones where lucky to have him on board during the glammer rock / punk period. I love the two guitar approach of the 78 and 81 tour, and can't really think of another guitarist who would have been able to pull that off. And I think that with a Taylor/Perkins/Mandel type of blues player they never would have survived the late 70's and early 80's.

And I agree -from '89 on Wood's role is mainly to be a Rolling Stone, entertaining the crowd. His guitar parts, as are Richards guitar parts, are greatly diminished, and in the 90's Wood really was terrible, up to a point that he was so low in the mix that you wouldn't even hear him. Any decent guitarist would have been able to do a better job than Wood in the 90's.

Mathijs

What is the cause and what is the effect about Wood in the 90's? Was he low in the mix because he played bad, or did he play bad (which he didn't do all the time btw) because he was only given a minor role musically? Even in 89-90 he was sometimes barely audible despite him playing well.

Quote
Bärs
What is the cause and what is the effect about Wood in the 90's? Was he low in the mix because he played bad, or did he play bad (which he didn't do all the time btw) because he was only given a minor role musically? Even in 89-90 he was sometimes barely audible despite him playing well.

He was mainly drunk, hence he was turned way down in the mix.