Quote
Kurt
Wow...well done hopkins and thanks for that above ^^^^

At the risk of disappointing myself for chiming in on a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD[[/b]/b] thread, I will only add this...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ronnie Wood SAVED The Rolling Stones.
He is playing WONDERFULLY well today and I feel extremely lucky to still be a fan of his work.

The man has PEDIGREE.

A true Rock N' Roll Survivor.

Yes it's really interesting that this is a thirteen year old thread, the Stones as a band go back 56 years now and so its interesting to see in thirteen years how Ronnie has turned it around. He has earned himself a lot of respect from a lot of Stones fans in thirteen years, he was seen as a useless oaf who hit bum notes, missed whole solo's and generally let the band and fans down alike.

Good for you Ronnie,we love you, we forgive you, but i'm one of them that can't forget how absolutely terrible you was, and the fact that you can play so great now kind of makes it worse because now we know you weren't trying.

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Kurt

A true Rock N' Roll Survivor.

Good for you Ronnie,we love you, we forgive you, but i'm one of them that can't forget how absolutely terrible you was, and the fact that you can play so great now kind of makes it worse because now we know you weren't trying.

keithsman, I appreciate your opinion on this:
Do you really think he wasn't trying???

Addiction is a bitch. It's no excuse, but I tend to believe he was lost back then.

Quote
Kurt

Quote
keithsman

Quote
Kurt

A true Rock N' Roll Survivor.

Good for you Ronnie,we love you, we forgive you, but i'm one of them that can't forget how absolutely terrible you was, and the fact that you can play so great now kind of makes it worse because now we know you weren't trying.

keithsman, I appreciate your opinion on this:
Do you really think he wasn't trying???

Addiction is a bitch. It's no excuse, but I tend to believe he was lost back then.

Actually you are right, i'm being a bit insensitive, i think as people we liken the way we drink or take drugs as the way it is.
Perhaps for Ronnie he really couldn't stop, when i drink to excess i fall over lol, so i think a drinker who doesn't fall over hasn't got a problem .
Its different for everyone but we measure it by our own standards.
Keith can obviously stop when he wants, Ronnie maybe not.
When i think about it, Ronnie has never missed a single show since he joined the band, i tend to think that he is exaggerating his drink problem because of that, but on the other hand maybe he is just always slowly topping up.

RW was excellent in The Faces. I have seen them live three times and was very impressed. He does not have the opportunity to compose as he did in The Faces. RW wrote some beautiful songs and played beautifully as well.

If you listen to the Stones "Rough Justice" it sounds exactly like The Faces. I could tell RW fuzzy funky guitar from the opening cords.

Quote
PhillyFAN
RW was excellent in The Faces. I have seen them live three times and was very impressed. He does not have the opportunity to compose as he did in The Faces. RW wrote some beautiful songs and played beautifully as well.

If you listen to the Stones "Rough Justice" it sounds exactly like The Faces. I could tell RW fuzzy funky guitar from the opening cords.

If you listen to the three Keith solo albums you get that same funky guitar on a lot of tracks, Rough Justice is Keith all the way baby, listen to it live.

[www.youtube.com]

I still here Faces influence. Especially Rw slide work. Reminiscent of Stay with Me and Miss Judy's Farm. At least to my old ears. It's still a stellar song.

Gotta laugh at some of the comments on this site - Ronnie losing his chops - what a load of rubbish. Ronnie is a solid, dependable guitarist - great with Faces and stifled with the Stones.
Keith is the one who has lost his chops.

There is one thing that has not been mentioned in this thread, but is extremely important when it comes to Ronnie and the Stones: He looked the part.

Quote
Chester
There is one thing that has not been mentioned in this thread, but is extremely important when it comes to Ronnie and the Stones: He looked the part.

They had one blonde guitarist, and continued with another. How did he look the part?

Quote
PhillyFAN
I still here Faces influence. Especially Rw slide work. Reminiscent of Stay with Me and Miss Judy's Farm. At least to my old ears. It's still a stellar song.

Yes the slide guitar sound is Faces but the funky sound was Keiths, well to me it is if you watch that clip and others.

I'm just curious to know what the statement "Ronnie lacks a distinctive sound" is based on?

It's not an opinion. On the contrary, it's easy to prove that this statement is false - as it's very easy to spot Ronnie in a sound mix, no matter who he plays with.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm just curious to know what the statement "Ronnie lacks a distinctive sound" is based on?

It's not an opinion. On the contrary, it's easy to prove that this statement is false - as it's very easy to spot Ronnie in a sound mix, no matter who he plays with.

When I think of Pete Townshend,, BBK King, Hendrix Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Mark Knofler, Dave Davis, Carlos Santana, Keith Richards, Buddy Guy, Dave Gilmore etc their sound is distinctively theirs, in the 70s with the Stones and especially since the 90`s ai can't say that Ronnie has a distinctive sound other than on slide.

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm just curious to know what the statement "Ronnie lacks a distinctive sound" is based on?

It's not an opinion. On the contrary, it's easy to prove that this statement is false - as it's very easy to spot Ronnie in a sound mix, no matter who he plays with.

When I think of Pete Townshend,, BBK King, Hendrix Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Mark Knofler, Dave Davis, Carlos Santana, Keith Richards, Buddy Guy, Dave Gilmore etc their sound is distinctively theirs, in the 70s with the Stones and especially since the 90`s ai can't say that Ronnie has a distinctive sound other than on slide.

Who else could have done SG and ER? And name another guitar player who plays like that.

Quote
keithsman
I have to scratch my head at all this Ronnie praise, he's just an average player who got very lucky.

There are a thousand like him, he doesn't really have any distinction as a player, don't get me wrong i love he and Keith's weaving and on occasion he pulls off some surprisingly good solo's, but someone like Waddy is far better in my opinion and gets more out of Keith too.

I wouldn't want to change anything , i'm happy Ronnie kept the band going all these years, as a personality he is irreplaceable, and he was great with the faces, that fun personality was perfect, but he is limited as a player, i think after Taylor left Keith didn't want the challenge anymore, he wanted a foil so he could look great without competition. It works and the boys are still playing, but honestly he's not really that good, he just plays in fits and starts, he fills in here and there but he's not a great player in his own right. Just a very lucky guy.

I can't agree with that statement keithman; I really do feel that has had his very own sound, and carved out a distinctive niche for himself. And that is why IMO the thread's original question still stands, 13 years or not: WTF happened? I can not really think of anyone else who put those very parts together, the way he did in the Faces. The influence from Bass, the Open D, the slide, and all that Anglo Country sense of melody - but played on a Zemaitis through a loud Ampeg with Lo EQ. Add to that was the type of songs they were playing - many written by Lane, and Stewart who all came from Britain heritage.
I have to conxcur that once he joined the Stones, he kind of lost most of all that. Lost his uniqueness. I think it just hit me: that is exactly what happened IMHO.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm just curious to know what the statement "Ronnie lacks a distinctive sound" is based on?

It's not an opinion. On the contrary, it's easy to prove that this statement is false - as it's very easy to spot Ronnie in a sound mix, no matter who he plays with.

When I think of Pete Townshend,, BBK King, Hendrix Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Mark Knofler, Dave Davis, Carlos Santana, Keith Richards, Buddy Guy, Dave Gilmore etc their sound is distinctively theirs, in the 70s with the Stones and especially since the 90`s ai can't say that Ronnie has a distinctive sound other than on slide.

Who else could have done SG and ER? And name another guitar player who plays like that.

That really isn't much to boast about compared to Mick Taylors distinctive mark he made on better Stones album's.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
keithsman
I have to scratch my head at all this Ronnie praise, he's just an average player who got very lucky.

There are a thousand like him, he doesn't really have any distinction as a player, don't get me wrong i love he and Keith's weaving and on occasion he pulls off some surprisingly good solo's, but someone like Waddy is far better in my opinion and gets more out of Keith too.

I wouldn't want to change anything , i'm happy Ronnie kept the band going all these years, as a personality he is irreplaceable, and he was great with the faces, that fun personality was perfect, but he is limited as a player, i think after Taylor left Keith didn't want the challenge anymore, he wanted a foil so he could look great without competition. It works and the boys are still playing, but honestly he's not really that good, he just plays in fits and starts, he fills in here and there but he's not a great player in his own right. Just a very lucky guy.

I can't agree with that statement keithman; I really do feel that has had his very own sound, and carved out a distinctive niche for himself. And that is why IMO the thread's original question still stands, 13 years or not: WTF happened? I can not really think of anyone else who put those very parts together, the way he did in the Faces. The influence from Bass, the Open D, the slide, and all that Anglo Country sense of melody - but played on a Zemaitis through a loud Ampeg with Lo EQ. Add to that was the type of songs they were playing - many written by Lane, and Stewart who all came from Britain heritage.
I have to conxcur that once he joined the Stones, he kind of lost most of all that. Lost his uniqueness. I think it just hit me: that is exactly what happened IMHO.

It's all good Palace, you have some valid points and I agree, what happened to Woody, he started off great with the Stones but the best job in the world nearly destroyed him and Taylor. It's a mystery, I love Keith to bits but he is one dominant alpha male.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-31 15:07 by keithsman.

...well that didn't take long to devolve into a RW vs MT vs KR post.....wtf?....RW is a great addition to the Stones albeit undervalued, and certainly not used ( as in possibly stifled) enough....

Quote
Rip This
...well that didn't take long to devolve into a RW vs MT vs KR post.....wtf?....RW is a great addition to the Stones albeit undervalued, and certainly not used ( as in possibly stifled) enough....

Just enjoying a nice discussion in a diplomatic way, no need to get excited. (oh I know a song with that line) What you worried about, is Ronnie not up for comparison. This is a domocracy here and all the Stones are up for discussion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-31 15:33 by keithsman.

For once, I personally think Ronnie is - both musically and personally - much better fit with the Stones and MT. He played great with Faces and equally great with Stones. It is not his fault that the quality of new material went down in later years.

Quote
MartinB
For once, I personally think Ronnie is - both musically and personally - much better fit with the Stones and MT. He played great with Faces and equally great with Stones. It is not his fault that the quality of new material went down in later years.

Thanks for being personal for once, personally i don't think it's fair to Mick Taylor to be negative towards him at any level, he gave the best of himself during those years with the Stones regardless of the drink and drugs he was taking and regardless of his relationship with Keith. He sort of came, he conquered, and he left, job done. To my mind Ronnie is great for the Stones, he was a breath of fresh air, but I can't believe Mick Jagger put up with 34 years of mediocrity from him, just as he is putting up with it now from Keith. I'm pleased that Ronnie got his game back just in time, otherwise these shows since 2012 would have been a disaster, and I thank Ronnie for that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-31 15:53 by keithsman.

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm just curious to know what the statement "Ronnie lacks a distinctive sound" is based on?

It's not an opinion. On the contrary, it's easy to prove that this statement is false - as it's very easy to spot Ronnie in a sound mix, no matter who he plays with.

When I think of Pete Townshend,, BBK King, Hendrix Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Mark Knofler, Dave Davis, Carlos Santana, Keith Richards, Buddy Guy, Dave Gilmore etc their sound is distinctively theirs, in the 70s with the Stones and especially since the 90`s ai can't say that Ronnie has a distinctive sound other than on slide.

Who else could have done SG and ER? And name another guitar player who plays like that.

That really isn't much to boast about compared to Mick Taylors distinctive mark he made on better Stones album's.

Seemingly, we have different interpretations of the word distinctive. For me that means easily recognisable, as opposed to yours: a style you fancy more than others.

Lou Reed was also a distinctive guitarist, just as John Lee Hooker was.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm just curious to know what the statement "Ronnie lacks a distinctive sound" is based on?

It's not an opinion. On the contrary, it's easy to prove that this statement is false - as it's very easy to spot Ronnie in a sound mix, no matter who he plays with.

When I think of Pete Townshend,, BBK King, Hendrix Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Mark Knofler, Dave Davis, Carlos Santana, Keith Richards, Buddy Guy, Dave Gilmore etc their sound is distinctively theirs, in the 70s with the Stones and especially since the 90`s ai can't say that Ronnie has a distinctive sound other than on slide.

Who else could have done SG and ER? And name another guitar player who plays like that.

That really isn't much to boast about compared to Mick Taylors distinctive mark he made on better Stones album's.

Seemingly, we have different interpretations of the word distinctive. For me that means easily recognisable, as opposed to yours: a style you fancy more than others.

Lou Reed was also a distinctive guitarist, just as John Lee Hooker was.

I think the argument you are trying to make (and you are winning ) is that Ronnie is a distinctively average player when compared to the guitarists i mentioned above.
Lou Reed doesn't come in anyone's top 50 guitarists compilations, and neither does Ronnie.
I'm measuring distinction as greatness and instantly recognizable within that distinctive sound created by the guitarist.
Notice Keith always comes in the top 5 of best players, because those riffs are distinctive to a lot of people . Keith may not be technically as good as Ronnie but Keith's guitar has a much more distinctive sound to the average ear. How is distinctiveness measured from a guitar ? by the sound that individual makes with his guitar, people like Jeff Beck, Angus or Slash are distinctive, they have a sound that is unique to them and is experienced by the listener as instantly recognizable.
Hope this helps to answer your question.

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm just curious to know what the statement "Ronnie lacks a distinctive sound" is based on?

It's not an opinion. On the contrary, it's easy to prove that this statement is false - as it's very easy to spot Ronnie in a sound mix, no matter who he plays with.

When I think of Pete Townshend,, BBK King, Hendrix Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Mark Knofler, Dave Davis, Carlos Santana, Keith Richards, Buddy Guy, Dave Gilmore etc their sound is distinctively theirs, in the 70s with the Stones and especially since the 90`s ai can't say that Ronnie has a distinctive sound other than on slide.

Who else could have done SG and ER? And name another guitar player who plays like that.

That really isn't much to boast about compared to Mick Taylors distinctive mark he made on better Stones album's.

Seemingly, we have different interpretations of the word distinctive. For me that means easily recognisable, as opposed to yours: a style you fancy more than others.

Lou Reed was also a distinctive guitarist, just as John Lee Hooker was.

I think the argument you are trying to make (and you are winning ) is that Ronnie is a distinctively average player when compared to the guitarists i mentioned above.
Lou Reed doesn't come in anyone's top 50 guitarists compilations, and neither does Ronnie.
I'm measuring distinction as greatness and instantly recognizable within that distinctive sound created by the guitarist.
Notice Keith always comes in the top 5 of best players, because those riffs are distinctive to a lot of people . Keith may not be technically as good as Ronnie but Keith's guitar has a much more distinctive sound to the average ear. How is distinctiveness measured from a guitar ? by the sound that individual makes with his guitar, people like Jeff Beck, Angus or Slash are distinctive, they have a sound that is unique to them and is experienced by the listener as instantly recognizable.
Hope this helps to answer your question.

Firstly, distinct can never be average. If you stick out you are distinctive per definition.

Secondly, I have never heard anyone play like Ronnie did on the old Faces classics, Hey Negrita, Dance or the other songs he wrote - have you?

So, the element of what you perceive as greatness doesn't really have anything to do with distinctness - it's merely your subjective musical taste

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm just curious to know what the statement "Ronnie lacks a distinctive sound" is based on?

It's not an opinion. On the contrary, it's easy to prove that this statement is false - as it's very easy to spot Ronnie in a sound mix, no matter who he plays with.

When I think of Pete Townshend,, BBK King, Hendrix Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Mark Knofler, Dave Davis, Carlos Santana, Keith Richards, Buddy Guy, Dave Gilmore etc their sound is distinctively theirs, in the 70s with the Stones and especially since the 90`s ai can't say that Ronnie has a distinctive sound other than on slide.

Who else could have done SG and ER? And name another guitar player who plays like that.

That really isn't much to boast about compared to Mick Taylors distinctive mark he made on better Stones album's.

Seemingly, we have different interpretations of the word distinctive. For me that means easily recognisable, as opposed to yours: a style you fancy more than others.

Lou Reed was also a distinctive guitarist, just as John Lee Hooker was.

I think the argument you are trying to make (and you are winning ) is that Ronnie is a distinctively average player when compared to the guitarists i mentioned above.
Lou Reed doesn't come in anyone's top 50 guitarists compilations, and neither does Ronnie.
I'm measuring distinction as greatness and instantly recognizable within that distinctive sound created by the guitarist.
Notice Keith always comes in the top 5 of best players, because those riffs are distinctive to a lot of people . Keith may not be technically as good as Ronnie but Keith's guitar has a much more distinctive sound to the average ear. How is distinctiveness measured from a guitar ? by the sound that individual makes with his guitar, people like Jeff Beck, Angus or Slash are distinctive, they have a sound that is unique to them and is experienced by the listener as instantly recognizable.
Hope this helps to answer your question.

Firstly, distinct can never be average. If you stick out you are distinctive per definition.

Secondly, I have never heard anyone play like Ronnie did on the old Faces classics, Hey Negrita, Dance or the other songs he wrote - have you?

So, the element of what you perceive as greatness doesn't really have anything to do with distinctness - it's merely your subjective musical taste

If you say so DP , who am i to disagree with an iorr legend

In all seriousness though, i think it's because i don't rate Hey Negrita, Dance or ER as particularly great Stones tracks, i like them, i really like Slave BTW, but those Ronnie funky things don't do it for me.

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm just curious to know what the statement "Ronnie lacks a distinctive sound" is based on?

It's not an opinion. On the contrary, it's easy to prove that this statement is false - as it's very easy to spot Ronnie in a sound mix, no matter who he plays with.

When I think of Pete Townshend,, BBK King, Hendrix Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Mark Knofler, Dave Davis, Carlos Santana, Keith Richards, Buddy Guy, Dave Gilmore etc their sound is distinctively theirs, in the 70s with the Stones and especially since the 90`s ai can't say that Ronnie has a distinctive sound other than on slide.

Who else could have done SG and ER? And name another guitar player who plays like that.

That really isn't much to boast about compared to Mick Taylors distinctive mark he made on better Stones album's.

Seemingly, we have different interpretations of the word distinctive. For me that means easily recognisable, as opposed to yours: a style you fancy more than others.

Lou Reed was also a distinctive guitarist, just as John Lee Hooker was.

I think the argument you are trying to make (and you are winning ) is that Ronnie is a distinctively average player when compared to the guitarists i mentioned above.
Lou Reed doesn't come in anyone's top 50 guitarists compilations, and neither does Ronnie.
I'm measuring distinction as greatness and instantly recognizable within that distinctive sound created by the guitarist.
Notice Keith always comes in the top 5 of best players, because those riffs are distinctive to a lot of people . Keith may not be technically as good as Ronnie but Keith's guitar has a much more distinctive sound to the average ear. How is distinctiveness measured from a guitar ? by the sound that individual makes with his guitar, people like Jeff Beck, Angus or Slash are distinctive, they have a sound that is unique to them and is experienced by the listener as instantly recognizable.
Hope this helps to answer your question.

Firstly, distinct can never be average. If you stick out you are distinctive per definition.

Secondly, I have never heard anyone play like Ronnie did on the old Faces classics, Hey Negrita, Dance or the other songs he wrote - have you?

So, the element of what you perceive as greatness doesn't really have anything to do with distinctness - it's merely your subjective musical taste

If you say so DP , who am i to disagree with an iorr legend

In all seriousness though, i think it's because i don't rate Hey Negrita, Dance or ER as particularly great Stones tracks, i like them, i really like Slave BTW, but those Ronnie funky things don't do it for me.

How we rate things will always be subjective, and who am I to tell you what's great or not?

However, I thought we were discussing a distinctive style here, which is another matter, hence the point I tried to make.

PS: They wiped Ronnie from Slave, so I assume you're talking about the outtake he's on? I like that version very much, too

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm just curious to know what the statement "Ronnie lacks a distinctive sound" is based on?

It's not an opinion. On the contrary, it's easy to prove that this statement is false - as it's very easy to spot Ronnie in a sound mix, no matter who he plays with.

When I think of Pete Townshend,, BBK King, Hendrix Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Mark Knofler, Dave Davis, Carlos Santana, Keith Richards, Buddy Guy, Dave Gilmore etc their sound is distinctively theirs, in the 70s with the Stones and especially since the 90`s ai can't say that Ronnie has a distinctive sound other than on slide.

Who else could have done SG and ER? And name another guitar player who plays like that.

That really isn't much to boast about compared to Mick Taylors distinctive mark he made on better Stones album's.

Seemingly, we have different interpretations of the word distinctive. For me that means easily recognisable, as opposed to yours: a style you fancy more than others.

Lou Reed was also a distinctive guitarist, just as John Lee Hooker was.

I think the argument you are trying to make (and you are winning ) is that Ronnie is a distinctively average player when compared to the guitarists i mentioned above.
Lou Reed doesn't come in anyone's top 50 guitarists compilations, and neither does Ronnie.
I'm measuring distinction as greatness and instantly recognizable within that distinctive sound created by the guitarist.
Notice Keith always comes in the top 5 of best players, because those riffs are distinctive to a lot of people . Keith may not be technically as good as Ronnie but Keith's guitar has a much more distinctive sound to the average ear. How is distinctiveness measured from a guitar ? by the sound that individual makes with his guitar, people like Jeff Beck, Angus or Slash are distinctive, they have a sound that is unique to them and is experienced by the listener as instantly recognizable.
Hope this helps to answer your question.

Firstly, distinct can never be average. If you stick out you are distinctive per definition.

Secondly, I have never heard anyone play like Ronnie did on the old Faces classics, Hey Negrita, Dance or the other songs he wrote - have you?

So, the element of what you perceive as greatness doesn't really have anything to do with distinctness - it's merely your subjective musical taste

If you say so DP , who am i to disagree with an iorr legend

In all seriousness though, i think it's because i don't rate Hey Negrita, Dance or ER as particularly great Stones tracks, i like them, i really like Slave BTW, but those Ronnie funky things don't do it for me.

How we rate things will always be subjective, and who am I to tell you what's great or not?

However, I thought we were discussing a distinctive style here, which is another matter, hence the point I tried to make.

PS: They wiped Ronnie from Slave, so I assume you're talking about the outtake he's on? I like that version very much, too

I suppose some guitarists are just more instantly recognizable, to me the tracks that Ronnie is very recognizable on don't appeal to me that much, so in that sense i am being bias against him when it comes to distinction.

What i love about Ronnie (regardless of where he comes in at as best guitarists ever), is his musicianship with Keith, i love their interlocking playing, weaving, whatever people want to call it. I also love watching those two on stage, everything about that stage presence they have, whether its getting into a grove in each others faces or fooling around, its just unique between them.

Keith was asked by the English presenter Chris Evens , " who is the best guitarist between you and Ron," Keith says "On our own we are pretty lousy, but together we're better than ten others" That just about sums it up for me.

Yes i love Slave from the Black And Blue sessions Keith sounds great on that too, more grungy

I was unaware that Ronnie had been wiped from Slave, what was the reason for that i wonder.

I don't actually hear Ronnie in the outtake , he sounds like keith lol.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-31 18:58 by keithsman.

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
keithsman

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm just curious to know what the statement "Ronnie lacks a distinctive sound" is based on?

It's not an opinion. On the contrary, it's easy to prove that this statement is false - as it's very easy to spot Ronnie in a sound mix, no matter who he plays with.

When I think of Pete Townshend,, BBK King, Hendrix Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Mark Knofler, Dave Davis, Carlos Santana, Keith Richards, Buddy Guy, Dave Gilmore etc their sound is distinctively theirs, in the 70s with the Stones and especially since the 90`s ai can't say that Ronnie has a distinctive sound other than on slide.

Who else could have done SG and ER? And name another guitar player who plays like that.

That really isn't much to boast about compared to Mick Taylors distinctive mark he made on better Stones album's.

Seemingly, we have different interpretations of the word distinctive. For me that means easily recognisable, as opposed to yours: a style you fancy more than others.

Lou Reed was also a distinctive guitarist, just as John Lee Hooker was.

I think the argument you are trying to make (and you are winning ) is that Ronnie is a distinctively average player when compared to the guitarists i mentioned above.
Lou Reed doesn't come in anyone's top 50 guitarists compilations, and neither does Ronnie.
I'm measuring distinction as greatness and instantly recognizable within that distinctive sound created by the guitarist.
Notice Keith always comes in the top 5 of best players, because those riffs are distinctive to a lot of people . Keith may not be technically as good as Ronnie but Keith's guitar has a much more distinctive sound to the average ear. How is distinctiveness measured from a guitar ? by the sound that individual makes with his guitar, people like Jeff Beck, Angus or Slash are distinctive, they have a sound that is unique to them and is experienced by the listener as instantly recognizable.
Hope this helps to answer your question.

Firstly, distinct can never be average. If you stick out you are distinctive per definition.

Secondly, I have never heard anyone play like Ronnie did on the old Faces classics, Hey Negrita, Dance or the other songs he wrote - have you?

So, the element of what you perceive as greatness doesn't really have anything to do with distinctness - it's merely your subjective musical taste

If you say so DP , who am i to disagree with an iorr legend

In all seriousness though, i think it's because i don't rate Hey Negrita, Dance or ER as particularly great Stones tracks, i like them, i really like Slave BTW, but those Ronnie funky things don't do it for me.

How we rate things will always be subjective, and who am I to tell you what's great or not?

However, I thought we were discussing a distinctive style here, which is another matter, hence the point I tried to make.

PS: They wiped Ronnie from Slave, so I assume you're talking about the outtake he's on? I like that version very much, too

I suppose some guitarists are just more instantly recognizable, to me the tracks that Ronnie is very recognizable on don't appeal to me that much, so in that sense i am being bias against him when it comes to distinction.

What i love about Ronnie (regardless of where he comes in at as best guitarists ever), is his musicianship with Keith, i love their interlocking playing, weaving, whatever people want to call it. I also love watching those two on stage, everything about that stage presence they have, whether its getting into a grove in each others faces or fooling around, its just unique between them.

Keith was asked by the English presenter Chris Evens , " who is the best guitarist between you and Ron," Keith says "On our own we are pretty lousy, but together we're better than ten others" That just about sums it up for me.

Yes i love Slave from the Black And Blue sessions Keith sounds great on that too, more grungy

I was unaware that Ronnie had been wiped from Slave, what was the reason for that i wonder.

I don't actually hear Ronnie in the outtake , he sounds like keith lol.

Follow this link, mate. The other guitar is Ronnie. Enjoy! [www.dropbox.com]

Thanks DP

OMG this is an amazing version of Slave , i can't get enough of it, the sounds Mick makes are like the reason i loved this band in the first place.
Like with Under My Thumb , its just incredible.

Cheers Dande



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-01 23:17 by keithsman.

The thing I enjoy about Ronnie's playing (and I think when given the opportunity he is a great player) is that even if you think he isn't the most "technically" gifted player (whatever that means) is that it had soul or feeling behind it.

There are too many players that seem to have the impression that playing a million notes constitutes great playing but it's not what I enjoy. Isn't that the reason why so many people love Keith as well at the end of the day?

And I also agree with something posted earlier about Ronnie playing well when given an opportunity or some material to work with. Unfortunately for him, post 1980s there hasn't been a great amount of material he could work with provided by the glimmers. Even MT fans would have to admit that if their periods with the band were switched that he would have struggled (possibly even more so than Ronnie) due to Mick and Keith not giving space to write songs even when they seemed to be running dry creatively.

Just my two cents. I love Ronnie so felt obliged to share