Anyone who was around from the begining and perhaps really caught Stones fever around 1969saw them with Taylor and 1969 and 1972 were the best they ever played live, particularly 1972. If you listen to them live 1975 you know it was slop. Wild Horse and Angie, you couldn't tell what songs they were until Jagger sang the lyrics, same for get off my cloud. Brown Sugar didn't rock like it did with Taylor and 1978 as I said in an earlier post was horrid. What made it a bigger disappointment was the fact they had put out their first great album in 6 years. 1981 though I loved it was not great musically, Jagger carried the show. SW was the first tour with Wood that even came close to the quality of 1969 - 1973 live. Woody's goofy behavior was also a turnoff. That said love the band not so sure about Wood.

Wood was accepted into the band by the Stones. It was their choice. He was not pushed on them by some record company. Why can't everyone else accept that? Wood has been having his problems, but he is a great guitarist and there is plenty of recordings to prove it. GIVE THE GUY A BREAK!!!!!!!!

Look I'm not bashing the guy, but I sense that Woody is liked only by the post Some Girls crowd who never saw the Stones at their best.

So, you're saying the Stones from 1975 onwards were crap? Then WTF are you doing here?

Without Ronnie, the band wouldn't have existed past 1980. Are you saying that's what you would've wanted?

I don't understand this bitterness and outright hatred for Ronnie. From what I can gather from posts like yours, the band didn't even exist until 1969. Brian Jones? Do you remember Brian Jones? He started the band, and they had a few successful records prior to 1969, on which Brian played a part.

I praised SW tour and 1981. I'm sure your first tour must be licks.

You're wrong, I saw them in 1981. I also have the Handsome Girls Collection from 78--great stuff--rock n roll as its best, and only the way the Stones could deliver it. One of my favorites.

You missed it sorry.

Harry BS, I love Ronnie, so you may as well give it up. He's been a true Rolling Stone for thirty years. Get over it.

I agree, in '72 they were awesome. That being said, Mick turned 29 that year, had a Birthday cake melee onstage at MSG. As for Mick Taylor, I thought Goat's Head Soup and It's Only Rock n Roll were poor albums at the time.

Mr Wood did some good work on Some Girls and Tattoo You.

In '75, Mick's singing wasn't what I would call crisp. However, everyone seems to forget his voice is not getting stronger as he ages. For that matter, Keith's guitar playing is slipping to as he ages.

I find it odd that people will praise Mick Taylor, bash Ronnie but say nothing about Brian's musical talents. Brian was better all around, too bad he died so young. I wonder what they would be like today if Brian had stayed clean.

Boy o boy this is an old argument!
I suppose everyone loved the Stones best
back in the day, whenever that was for them.

At the very least Ronnie has provided good yeoman like
service, often in support of Keith, who might prefer
it that way. At anyrate the poor man has paid his
Stones dues by now and provided many if not all
of the best Stones moments over the years,
so let's give him a break!

Here's a toast to Ronnie!

>"Look I'm not bashing the guy".

And yet look at this little bright spark's title of the thread.

Instant contradiction at its best.



kyle m

Have you ever lent somebody $20 and never seen them again? It was probably worth it.

Brian was great and he broadened out the Stones sound considerably with his great musical versitility. The great thing about Brian is he brought great variety to the Stones sound which greatly enhances their output.It's also more difficult to compare the value of a sitar, flute or melletron solo with that of a guitar.
The reason he is not mentioned too much with regard to the Taylor/Wood debate is a real lack of live bootlegs on which to judge his performance. His era was less musically sophisticated and many concerts are drowned out by the audience.
The 69 tour was the first tour that could really be measured on musical terms - technical merit etc. and it is primarily the live shows that fuel the Taylor/ Wood debate.

taylor/wood...wood/taylor...i'm not sure which one i like...ooohhh the choice of deciding which era of stones is the best is just so overwhelming i feel the need to let everyone know how i feel...who gives a pigs fart about something that happened 30 yrs ago? taylor was a good guitar player both in the studio and live...but let me tell you a little secret, he isn't coming back...christ, right now we all sit here wondering if the stones will actually put out any new music and people are having flashbacks of thirty six yrs...look to the future...

Ron Wood's merits for the survival of the Rolling Stones are undebatable. That being said, if we focus on the latest live efforts by the boys, we can't deny that his guitar playing has often been very embarassing for any Stones fan. Despite all the bashing even here on this board, I do think that no one can play rock like The Rolling Stones, but a rock band just can't be really great with a guitar player who can't play anymore...Ron Wood is nowadays the weak link of "The greatest rock'n roll band in the world", and that's very hard to accept for hardcore fans like us.
Ron Wood is a nice person, but above all he's a professional musician, and he's so lucky to play with The Rolling Stones, so I don't understand why should we "give him a break"... As a professional musician, he should guarantee a solid guitar performance every concert, and not on and off like he did on the last tour! Let's look at Mick and Charlie...now, they ARE professional musicians!!!
I hope that next tour Ronnie will show us that he's definitely back, and that the Stones will became again a great guitar band!

"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."

i do have a question for the taylor lovers? i like both taylor and wood.. woodie seems a little more fun to watch at their concerts.. and some girls, tattoo you,
v.l. and bridges are some of the best work the stones have ever done..and that's with wood.

but if taylor is so great, why can't he land a big band to play with.. you see woodie still playing with the biggest and the best rock bands in the world when he's not working with the stones. taylor is still only playing with 2nd rate old timers and in small blues clubs in sweden, etc.. i think taylor was great and the stones needed him..

i always hoped that they move ronnie to bass and bring back taylor, (if he would lose the weight)...i would still like it if wyman came back....

anyway.... what happened to taylor?

"1981 though I loved it was not great musically"


lol!

What a sheer waste of time. Harrybigsack: why dont you invest the minute to find the previous message boards (probably dozens) about this topic. Otherwise I suggest we all just save our comments on hard disk and paste them everytime someone dredges up this reoccurring topic.

This topic is getting out of hand, we need this shit to end...

Brian Jones did not just found the band, he formed the whole image. The first true modern Rock God. Jim Morrison didnt adore him for the sitar but for his whole lifestyle and peronality. Period. Plz dont compare him to that clown Ronnie. Of course the Stones were better in 68/69-73. I love their mid 70s period too but its not because of Ronnie but Mick and Keith. why do you have to love their post 70s period to write here?

Mick Taylor hasn't got Ronnie's outgoing aimiable personality - that's why he doesn't get invited to play with top line stars like Ronnie.

THATS A SHAME.. taylor is great..love to see him on this tour... he could come to philly.....and play with the stones.

I think it's Mick Taylor's quiet personality which also contributes to making him such a great player though.His live playing with the Stones was great partly because he was disciplined and focused and not fooling around like Ronnie in addition to having far superior technical skill.

No Ed - Taylor has been Black - Balled by Jagger, and everybody's afraid to
go against Jagger by getting involved with Taylor. Clapton has jammed with
everyone Knopfler, BB King, etc. but wouldn't go near Taylor until last year
at Mayall's 70's b-day. Mayall (an outcast) Jack Bruce (when he was on the outs
with Clapton)and Dylan (Bob is one of the few who can do what he want's) are the only names who have played with MT over the years, wonder why??? MLC

It's really scary and somewhat sad that main topic of discussion on this board is people's unresolved feelings about Mick Taylor vs. Ron Wood. You really can't compare because with Brian Jones, Mick Tylor, and Ron Wood....the Stones are different bands. It's also sad to see that people can't get over the fact that Mick Taylor left. GET OVER IT!!! HE HAS!

Hound Dog...I'm with you! Maybe we can start a separate IORR where the Taylor vs. Wood. vs. Jones vs. my mother's cooking vs. Michael Jackson's haircut vs. Little Richard's tight ass vs. my Aunt Angela's homemade pasta discussions are the only subject discussed.

boy...that would be fun!

Mick Taylor is only blackballed in the minds of some fans.

Maybe people did not go near him for years secondary to a near fatal drug habit.

Maybe HE did not want to get sucked into the same gruleing arena rock circle that he had found so dissatisfying with the Stones.


Maybe other Big Name artists did not want to risk commitiong to someone that had walked out of a major act without warning JUST BEFORE a big tour.

Maybe like many other great artists he is just to moody and tempermental to get along with on a sustained basis.

Who knows?. But if anyone thinks that MJ has had the power and authority to keep MT out of the limelight in the entertainment field for over 30 years, they are dreaming. Mick does not have that power. Now before anyone jumps on my back saying I am attacking a guitar hero...nothing I have said above diminishes his ability to play guitar in any way.

Christ, people here are really personalizing an issue amongst other people ( MT and the Stones) and getting angry for the silliest of reasons. Whatever the issue is, it is not OURS, but belongs to MT and the Stones, and they probably cannot get as worked up about it after 3 decades as the people on this board.

BTW, though I agree Ronnie is not what he was or should be, is there any possible way that fans of either Woood or Taylor could praise their hero without bashing the other?

The fact is and this is a good one:

Ronnie a REAL STONE >>>>30 years and counting.

MT not a Real Stone and merely >>>>5 years in the band, (solely as a guitar player, such as Darryl Jones is in the band)

None of these Ronnie bashers want to look at the numbers, they look at what could have been.

The Ronnie bashers also discount anything Keith says on the subject. So if they don't believe Keith, (a founding member of the band) who will they believe? I can answer that, they only believe themselves and their own lost dreams.

"Brian Jones did not just found the band, he formed the whole image."
Right. But so did Mick, Keith... And Jimmy Phelge, too.
I admire your energy, fellow-fans: I appreciate Brian Jones, Mick Taylor and Ron Wood. I even like Chuck and the 'new' bass player, whatever his name was. Darryl.

At times when I become fed up with the Stones (like during the last tour) I have to remind myself of that terrible time when the mounties caught up with Keith, and to all intents and purposes, we were looking at the end of the band.

It was horrible. I'd never see them again. They'd never make another album. It was my worst nightmare.

Yet we're twenty-eight years down the road from then and a lot of thanks go to a lenient judge, a young blind girl, the US imigration authorities and of course, Ron Wood for being the glue that's kept them together as a unit.

I've bashed Wood from time to time, but only because I love him to bits.

"Wild Horse and Angie, you couldn't tell what songs they were until Jagger sang the lyrics, same for get off my cloud."

Huh, and you could recognize the songs then??? All I hear was some loud out of tune shouting and screaming and without any hope to distuingish any meaningful words... (and boy, that rocked..)

- Doxa

I do think at times Ronnie has been used as a scapegoat . The quality of the Stones music had declined on It's Only Rock And Roll - before Ronnie joined although i do believe he had a hand in the title track.
I also don't believe Mick Taylor would have been the Stones saviour if he had stayed. Mick may have enhanced a number of mediocre tracks on the later albums but ultimately Mick and Keith carry the burden of quality control.
I do believe though in picking Ronnie it confirmed the fact the Stones were no longer as conscientious about their work. Ronnie's joining really was an example of the general decline within the group.