"BOBM Wrote:


> For live performances the period 1989 - present is
> best.


Are you serious? I understand everyone has their opinion but, really? No offense Bob!

Half Nanker "


Here's my opinion- based on the movies Gimme Shelter and Ladies and Gentlemen it would appear to me this was the Stones at their best. However, I've only seen every tour since 1975 and IMO, 1989 on.. were the best I've seen. 1989 being my favorite because it had been an 8 year lay off and everything was fresh. The following tours were 1989 with adjustments. Other than getting a little tired of the warhorses, and disappointed in the guitars being lower in the mix lately, these guys are simply the best the world has to offer.

There are ONLY TWO rules here....

Rule 1) Harrybigsack is right

Rule 2) If Harrybigsack is wrong - see rule 1.

Regards,

Ian.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whats so hard about playing like Keith and Ronnie
> did.Handsome Girls has groove
> and alot of bum notes.
>


From this post i reckon that you don't play guitar. It's much easier to play like they did in '69/'73. "All" you need is a virtuose at lead guitar and somebody who can lay a rythem down like Keith does, well i never heard anybody do that but you catch my drift.
It's much harder to play/interact like Keith and Ronnie did in those days (unfortunately not anymore). You really have to know how the other person plays and vica versa. Charlie talked about how they play in some intervieuws. He said that they play very loose so there is room for improvisation. He said that sometimes it works out great and sometime when you have "misread" the other person it goes terribly wrong. It is much harder!!!!
It is still a mather of taste wich combination you like best but it's pretty simple wich one is the hardest to play!

Cheers,
Wuudy

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you get your butt kicked by BV or Doug Mr.
> Harry??? You seem to be very angry about something
> dude.
>
> www.JumpingKentFlash.tk - My website with tons of
> good stuff.
>
> - Images of me, The Rolling Stones and my
> home-made artwork.



I think he was probably joking????

Regards,

Ian.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

I do play guitar and one guitar played in open tuning and one guitar played in
standard concert with the same angular patterns and grooves is not difficult.
Anyone can count down and play rhythm and figure out when to come in and out.
These whole WEAVING thing is not hard and complex.Whats hard is IMPROVISATION and
playing with VIBRATO.

Stikkyfinger Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> I think he was probably joking?

I didn't get the joke at all. Slow head today.




JumpingKentFlash

OpenG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do play guitar and one guitar played in open
> tuning and one guitar played in
> standard concert with the same angular patterns
> and grooves is not difficult.
> Anyone can count down and play rhythm and figure
> out when to come in and out.
> These whole WEAVING thing is not hard and
> complex.Whats hard is IMPROVISATION and
> playing with VIBRATO.


Maybe it's me but i don't hear many bands in wich the guitar players ineteract like Keith and Ronnie did back in the days. The only band that comes to mind is Lynard Skynard, the live version of the song Free Bird is fantastic.
What Keith plays isn't hard to play it is how you come up with it. He has a unique style wich makes the music good. Same thing goes for solo/weaving. The notes they play aren't hard to play but you have to come up with them.
I agree with you that it's hard to be good at improvisation but his technique is something you can learn more easier than learn how to play together.

Cheers,
Wuudy

it's nuance. lots of folks (Johnny Winter, Bob Margolin) do a nice aping job of Muddy's slide solos. Lotsa folks can play those three-note solos "almost" like BB King himself - but the nuance of the masters always stands out. KR is another example of that - no, what he plays ain't difficult, but I have yet to hear anyone play what he plays as well as he plays it.

Excactly.

Cheers,
Wuudy

Somehow I distrust the intent
of this thread. Dunno quite what it is................

"There is some resistance to admitting the Taylor era is the best even if it is blatantly obvious."

From whom????

Do you do anything to get a Taylor remark in?

Although I agree the Taylor era is best re the Stones as I know do many others, who are you to presume what is 'blantantly obvious' when this is merely subject to opinion?

You and openg I have concluded are merely tragic bores that have too much time on your respectives pairs of hands.




kyle m

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

The intent of this thread was to provoke thought among the posters who seem in my opinion to not want to discuss, they want to gush or worse imitate.

Well, it worked didn't it Harry?
I don't think you're right though. You can think of them what you want I believe, but if you only think shite about them you're not really a fan, and then you don't really belong on a board made by a fan for fans. There's no actual rule for liking The Stones. Even if you think that the only good year they ever had was 1967 (), for instance, it's OK. Then you can make points why they were only good this year. Many people don't though and of course you will get some grief for only liking them in 1967 (If that was the actual case). The essence of being on a board/forum for something is that you cyber-hang with people who share an interest in something. Be it The Rolling Stones, The Beatles or even Barbera Streisand.
So to sum up: Boards are great. Especially these Stones-boards. And you you're probably welcome on every board on the internet if you share the interest in topic.

I believe this goes for both Bjørnulf's IORR, Doug's Shidoobee and Gazza, VoodooChileInWonderland and Jaxxx' RocksOff boards.

JumpingKentFlash

Its been 30 years since Taylor left...get over it!

I believe Monkey Man was refering to Roonie "Woody" Wood, not Waddy Wachtel. He was either funnin' wtcha's or mis-spelled the word/name

bassplayer617 Wrote:

> and rightfully so, considering those years
> comprised 12.5% of their entire existence.

ARE YOU THAT GOOD AT MEASURING YOUR WILLY, BUDDYBOY?




"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

bassplayer617 Wrote:

> and rightfully so, considering those years
> comprised 12.5% of their entire existence.

ARE YOU THAT GOOD AT MEASURING YOUR WILLY, BUDDYBOY?




"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

I have no problem admitting that the best albums are from BB to EOMS. I object to calling it all the Taylor era and making it sound if it is he and he alone is the reason for the greatness and the rest of the band, including the Glimmer Twins, merely rode MT's coat tails to superstardom.

I am also "blatently" unimpressed with GHS and IORR as masterpieces, indeed listen more often to SG and at least as often to Undrecover; and yet IORR and GHS are 50% of the studio output of the group with MT.

I have said it 1000 times in repsonse to Open G and the like, MT is a wonderful lead guitarist. He played some wicked licks live and in the studio. He did not make the Rolling Stones great, though he was there in the years that it may have happened, the transformance from good to great.

Now I am ready for all of you to jump on my ass and whine that I am either not a real fan, or have no musical knowledge

The Stones greatness does not come from Taylor it comes from primarily Mick and Keith's songwriting and excellent arrangements. The Stones were great before Taylor joined and on occasions after he left. What is noticeable though is they moved onto another level when he joined the group. This was partly due to the fact Mick and Keith had just entered their most inspired period beginning with Beggars Banquet. Brian's contibutions had lessened considerably by the time of Beggars Banquet and Taylors arrival was the icing in the cake -the final piece of the jigsaw which made the Stones worthy of the title The Greatest Rock And Roll Band In The World.
I'd agree not every Stones album Taylor played on was a classic but even on It's Only Rock And Roll there are some fine Taylor monents eg. Time Waits For No-one which is a style the Stones would never revisit.
Unfortunately the Stones would never reach those heights again and however great some of the later concerts may be there is distinctly something lacking.

kahoosier - that was an excellent post.

For fans to say that the Stones best years were when MT LEFT the band then they are kidding themseleves.

But you are right - the Stones (in particular Keith) were coming into their own - their peak during this period.

Although I think alot of people under-estimate Jimmy Miller during the "MT years".....

Esky

.....and to further add, one thing Mick Taylor definately contributed to was making Goats Heap Soup & It's Only Rock n Roll VERY GOOD albums as opposed to average-good albums....understand?
Without Taylor's guitar work during these 2 albums then I wouldn't listen to them that often.

Esky

Kaa-hoo,

GHS is, to me, EOMS Volume Two. The quiet end to all the frenzy. I still don't know where IORR fits it. It was a HUGE album after the widespread disapointment over GHS. What was the band's last #1 single? Miss You?

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

I agree haveing guitar TECHNIQUE overall is more important that playing lead
and Keith is my overall fav guitar player with his overall package of songwriting
and groundbreaking use of open delta tunings playing them on an electric guitar
and creating the sound of the stones.Keith greatly matured as songwriter and
guitar player on BB and LIB and should get all the credit.His use of open tunings
and playing with a capo sure worked and he got that sound he wanted in the studio
and live.THAT keltic sound of the ringing of the same notes was his way of getting that sustain of the notes that would come from a true lead guitar player.
A great example of that SOUND was his use of the capo on MM which is not difficult to play capo at 7th fret but he got that sound.There are so many more
examples of his great intro's on songs and his electric intro on GS with those
seductive splash of notes is one of the greatest intro's in rock history.The
desending and asending pattern is easy but brilliant and simple.Keith is perfect
on acoustic guitar with his open tunings and walkdowns and slides again easy
and simple.

Taylor's brilliance was his vibrato and melodies he came up with and he took
the stones to another level.

Brian Jones had all those beaituful instruments and Rubey Tuesday still sounds
fresh and new today because of his work.

What different sound or groundbreaking playing did Ron Wood bring to the band
He just played 2nd fiddle to Keith all these years.Thats my point the whole
weaving thing is not IMO bringing the stones live to another level that Taylor
brought them.

Rock and roll is a feel, few of these
guitarists are real virtuosos in the
technical sense, but I enjoy each of
them in their own way. Hey it's only
rock and roll but we love it. Anything
beyond that is pretentious, suspect
or misses the point.