Another thing MT and the stones worked there asses off from 69 to 74 and were
either in the studio or touring.Same thing can,t be said of the WOODY years.

1969 - LIB and Tour
1970 - tour and sticky
1971 sticky and exile
1972 tour
1973 tour GHS
1974 IORR

MT worked hard

Woody years just guessing off the top of my head

1975 - Inspiration for Black and Blue
1975 - tour
1978 some girls and tour
1981 tour Tatoo you
emotional rescue
undercover
dirty work
1989 tour steel wheels
1994 tour voodo lounge
1997 tour bridges to babylon
1999 tour i think
2002 and 2003 licks

So with woody they have had long layoffs of time.

I think that there are other factors for that than Ronnie.
During the Mick Taylor period they were at a creative peak and were at the top of there game. So to stay on top they had to produce albums and tour because there was a lot of competition.
For Ronnie's period. Keith had his drug/jail problems in the late seventies. I think it is part of the reason why they only did a short tour of America in '78. In the mid eighties Mick and Keith had problems. And in the nineties they did long tours everytime but they need to relax a bit after every tour to get the fire burning and i think that they just want to spent more time with there families or do solo stuff. The Steel Wheels/Urban jungle tour was about a year and a half so was the Voodoo lounge tour, the bridges to babylon/no security tour was THREE years and the Licks tour was another year and a half straight. Now for some well established rock stars in there fifty's through sixties that is a lot of working for someone who doesn't have to do it for money or to prove something.



Cheers,
Wuudy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-04 22:00 by Wuudy.

This is such a bizarre topic - those tours ('69 - 73) were way shorter than the tours since '89. the '72 tour was Jun 3 - Jul 26; the '73 EU was Sept 7 - Oct 19.
The shows were also WAY shorter. The '69 comeback tour of US was a mere month (11/7/69 - 12/6/69). Check the extended world tours of the past decade: 1994-95, 1997-98, 1999, 2002-03 (Licks: 14 months). And Mick T played on 2 tracks on LIB totalling 6:35. Hey, I didnt start this adding up of days.....

1982 Tour
1990 Tour
1995 Tour
1998 Tour
2003 Tour

lazy?

Oh shut up OpenG, with Taylor the band members were in their best age and maybe less effective after Taylor left as a result of keiths problems with drugs and cops, so I agree with you wuudy. By the way, the stones have never toured more than these days.

30 years vs/ 5 years says a whole lot....in Ronnie's favor/SB

We seem to have this continual debate & responces that -

Mick Taylor was better than Ronnie Wood or vice versa when they played with the Rolling Stones.

Both MT & RW are entirely different guitarists and have been good value to the Stones in many ways.
Each has a different style & approach yet they both fitted in giving the Stones a different sound and some excellent guitar solos & sounds.
Lets all rejoice that MT & RW joined and played for the greatest Rock & Roll band in the world as they both added value to the Stones but in different ways.

they both added value to the Stones but in different ways

Yes, Taylor was a good solo and rhythm guitarist.

Ron Wood is funny.

roby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they both added value to the Stones but in
> different ways
>
> Yes, Taylor was a good solo and rhythm guitarist.
>
> Ron Wood is funny.


LOL

Charly_z Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1982 Tour
> 1990 Tour
> 1995 Tour
> 1998 Tour
> 2003 Tour
>
> lazy?


What's your point? The years you described are when they toured Europe.
What about 1981, 1989, 1994, 1997, 1999 and 2002?


Cheers,
Wuudy

I don't think it's about lazyness, just that RW didn't feed Mick and Keith with any sort of artistic creativity. How many songs did he help to write? How many of them were terrible? While MT in the same time wrote some amazing jewels as Moonlight Mile (I met with him in Paris a few years ago and confessed he should have been credited for this song). It's also notorious that Mick & Keith never credited any of his songs and called them "Jagger/Richards" instead.

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another thing MT and the stones worked there asses
> off from 69 to 74 and were
> either in the studio or touring.Same thing can,t
> be said of the WOODY years.
>
> 1969 - LIB and Tour
> 1970 - tour and sticky
> 1971 sticky and exile
> 1972 tour
> 1973 tour GHS
> 1974 IORR
>
> MT worked hard
>
> Woody years just guessing off the top of my head
>
> 1975 - Inspiration for Black and Blue
> 1975 - tour
> 1978 some girls and tour
> 1981 tour Tatoo you
> emotional rescue
> undercover
> dirty work
> 1989 tour steel wheels
> 1994 tour voodo lounge
> 1997 tour bridges to babylon
> 1999 tour i think
> 2002 and 2003 licks
>
> So with woody they have had long layoffs of
> time.
>



are you seriously trying to suggest that the reason they work less now is because Woody is in the band? Thats nonsensical

How many reasons do you need?

1) they're rich and dont have to
2) they dont have as many creative ideas
3) they also have more solo work and side projects
4) their tours now are MUCH longer
5) they're older
6) they basically work only when Mick and Keith are inspired to do so - see 2) above
7) Mick and Keith went for years hardly speaking, let alone working together. Even now, they live 3,000 miles apart and their relationship is a shadow of what it was over 30 years ago - hardly conducive to a creative, hard working environment

Your summation of the 69-74 era is also way off when assuming they worked their socks off. Some of those recording sessions and tours only took up a few weeks of the year

And finally, have a check through the figures for the Brian Jones era. They barely took a break until they stopped touring in 1967. In 1964 alone, they played over 300 concerts. almost half of all of the concerts the Stones have ever played took place between 1963 and 1965.

Now THATS hard work!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-05 04:27 by Gazza.

Please Gazza, don't try and confuse them with the facts! They may stumble and fall on the way to the MT shrine they are erecting.

I don't think Ronnie's contribution can be denied. Admittedly the Stones have had long lay offs in that time but those tours have been enormous.
Ronnie has been committed to being a Stone even if his playing has not always been so.
I'm an enormous Taylor fan just like Open G and i don't feel the Stones could have found a better person at the time . Taylor was brilliant and i have missed him considerably.Ronnie hasn't got Taylor's technical skill - even today Taylor is still brilliant.
Unfortunately though just as Ronnie is vastly inferior to Mick so are the Stones to their former selves.
The Stones get by with Ronnie these days and their tours are hugely successful but the days when they were truly remarkable are long gone .
Ronnie and the rest of the Stones are built for endurance - Mick Taylor for skill.

I really find somewhat amazing that after 30 years of MickT leaving the band, there are a vast amount of threads related to the eternal MickT-Woody debate. I love the Taylor years, but let's face it, the "grandeur" of the Stones 68-74 was due to Jagger and Richards being in their peak... For sure Tayler added a lot to the Stones sound, but the MAIN REASON to reach the "Greatest R'N'R Band In The World" status was the Glimmer Twins Team at its maximum level.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Some People think MT was not a real stone and I was just trying to show how
much work and contributions MT did with his stay.

The reason MT was so important during his stay is that he changed the sound
of the stones from a pop sound with brian jones to more of a blusier raw rocking
sound which was very important at that time going into 1970 with larger shows and
the solo becoming very important.They went from making pop songs in the studio
to playing those songs live with no screaming girls.

He changed the whole ballgame with how Keith wants the band to sound and how
they work the 2 guitars with the whole weaving thing starting with brian and
then with Ronnie.

With Taylor there was a distinction between rhythm and lead and even being a great duo guitar attack in the long run keith probably would prefer two similiar
players.

OpenG wrote:

"The reason MT was so important during his stay is that he changed the sound
of the stones from a pop sound with brian jones to more of a blusier raw rocking
sound"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't find Beggars Banquet (or the 80% portion of Let It Bleed recorded previously MickT joining the band) pop at all... I mean, the change from pop to a blues sound was made before Taylor joined, IMHO.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

I hate to have to repeat myself, but what would Ya Yas have sounded without MT?

The band have lived off the benefits of his contribution for years. And Gazza, as for a shrine, we've got one already. It's called Exile On Main Street.

EOMS - hmmm..who wrote the songs on it?

For the record, I think you'll find it was Kahoosier who was teasing you guys about your "Taylor shrine", not me......

personally, I find this Taylor/Wood nonsense tedious in the extreme. He left 30 years ago. Get over it. My own personal take, for what its worth is pretty much exactly the way that Bruno sees it in his two posts earlier on this page.

Keith and Ronnie play a very similar style and sometimes it is hard to tell who's playing what. Mick Taylor was very different which meant the Stones could experiment a bit more eg Sway, Love In Vain(live)etc.The Stones were on another level with Mick in the group.
Ronnie is o.k. but there isn't that creative aspect the Stones had with Mick Taylor. When Ronnie's on form it's like listening to two Keith's playing. Ronnie doesn't do anything Keith couldn't do. Mick was very different so he gave the Stones the potential to try things very different.
The Stones had an extra dimension to their sound with Mick.

I don't usually have a problem discerning Ron from Keith, say when they really are 'on' together a la SG, ER, & DW (or the best '78 shows) - KR almost always plays in a lower register - they have definitely more similarities than KR & MT, but each still has a distinct musical personality.

John i agree Keith does play in a lower register - i can tell the difference on many songs but i don't find a significant difference with Keith and Ronnie like i do with Mick Taylor. Ronnie's playing does not increase the Stones creative potential like Mick Taylor.

I'm not gonna repeat again that MT was (and still is) a much better addition to the Stones than RW, but it's not fair to blame the poor guy for the (mostly) mediocre albums the Stones recorded since he left the band. The Glimmer Twins are just getting old and creativity is fading away. How many artist from the 60's-70's recorded major albums 30-40 years later, except for Dylan (and to a lesser extent Wilson, who finished something he started a while ago)? Not so many.
I don't think any new member would add the creativity our Stones need to have a long awaited new masterpiece.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-01-06 12:31 by micwer.

The TAYLOR FACTOR -

Keith does a great job with playing all the guitars on Beggars and LIV with the
exception of Brian on No Expecations and Taylor on Honky Tonk and Live with me,
BTW keith plays bass on Live with me.

Take the studio version of Stray Cat Blues a great effort by Keith but with
Taylor on Ya Ya's the song is transformed into a killer rocker with Taylor;s
lean and tonal guitar assault.

Take the studio version on LIV keith takes the robert johnson song and does
a beautuful acoustic arrangement(give keith credit because Clapton's version
on his tribute record to johnson is boring).

But with Taylor on Ya ya's his single note solo and slide solo is heaven and
is timeless.

Same can be said with many other jagger/richards compositions that taylor put his
signature stamp on and put the band on his shoulders.

Question - what studio song was enriched and soared by Ron Wood Live - I can,t
think of one that was fantastic and wood put the band on his shoulders for the
entire tours.

LIV - Meant LET It Bleed record

songs enriched live by Ronnie: the first one that comes to my mind is "Shattered"!
There are lots of other examples, but mainly songs they recorded after Taylor, I think.

hey never mind all this BS---what about DICK taylor??!! he toured with the band in 61-62 and they never worked harder in all their lives!!!...of course he left 43 years ago but he is a true stone, not like mick taylor and ronnie and bill wyman and charlie and mick or keef....smirk...........and don't get me started on ricky fenson, carlo little, mick avory, and geoff bradford---all TRUE rolling stones!!!!!!!....huge smirk...

STONES JAM!! MICKEYS RULES!!! (burp) NADER IN 2016!!!!! GO GIANTS!!

A lot of this is just taste - I think LIB is an A+ album, Keith's guitars, inc slide is perfect, (as is the studio Stray Cat - virtually flawless imo), but I also love the very different live versions w/MT too....It just isnt a case of either/or, or 'better/worse' sometimes.

No, it isn't. But Open G String makes the valid point that Taylor's presence on the live versions transformed them in a way that Ronnie has not done. Has he?